sanctuary

The flood of 1927: Forgetting the past and denying the future

2011-08-31T15:28:00.002-06:00

The past returns

Hurricane Irene caused flooding and destruction along the east coast, but has been especially devastating in Vermont and parts of upstate New York. It was however not the first time.

The nearly forgotten Flood of 1927 caused havoc in parts of New England more than 80 years ago. It was especially bad in Vermont and upstate New York and may have brought on The Great Depression in parts of New England two years before the 1929 crash of the stock market.

The economic systems and infrastructure of upper New England were destroyed. The mill town economies of Vermont and upstate New York were finished. The recovery process was long, painful, and expensive and continued well into the 1950s.

The future has arrived

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has an interesting chart covering the major natural disasters in the U.S. since 1980 by state. See Billion Dollar Climate and Weather Disasters 1980-2010. As well, take a look at the Climate Prediction Center. By all indications the number and severity of these natural disasters will rise in the foreseeable future.

---------

Public screening for the film Mother: Caring for the 7 Billion will continue throughout the U.S. from 9/21-10/21, including Kansas City, KS on 10/4/11. Also see MOTHER caring for 7 billion.

Additional reading:

Hurriquake! Mudslami! Volnado!

Transition to a different system

New England Flood of 1927

Marching to the 19th century

2011-08-26T06:21:00.002-06:00

Of course like every other man of intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution.

(Woodrow Wilson, campaigning for President of United States in 1912)

Thank Heaven, I sat at the feet of Darwin and Huxley.

(My Life as a Naturalist by Theodore Roosevelt, President of United States, 1901-1909)

It was somewhat surprising. Dr. Ron Paul, medical doctor, darling of the Libertarians and Republican presidential candidate apparently doesn't believe in evolutionary theory, at least according to the video. Whether he was pandering to the general ignorance or truly believes in what he uttered, it hardly speaks well of a man wishing to become the President of the United States.

Of course, Ron Paul is unlikely to ever wander through the White House. But it says something about the general dumbing down of the U.S., and that is the real problem in America.

The theory of gravity and other 'false' beliefs

2011-08-23T16:44:00.000-06:00

While Rick Perry, governor of Texas, is a nasty, ignorant piece of work, he certainly tells us something about the Republican cult, Texas politics and maybe the Southern political culture in general. His arrival as still another dismal presidential wannabe also shines a light on all of us at the present time. We have only ourselves to blame if we don't move way beyond this endless, increasingly harmful nonsense.
Building actual resiliency

In the United States and elsewhere there are a lot of reasons to take seriously the development of resilientcommunities. Certainly our collapsing political and economic system offers a couple of reasons, but global climate change and demographic pressure will also likely affect all of us in ways we can only begin to imagine right now.

Transitioning to functioning resilient communities means bringing people together to create community and connection. The resources and expertise however are growing rapidly. In America, as the various systems grind to a halt and the elites attempt to run for cover, we'll soon discover the importance of resiliency, be it in a rural village, a suburban enclave or within the central city. (See U.S. Scrambling to Ease Shortage of Vital Medicine.)

While the elites in the U.S. are increasingly devoid of original thought and are more often than not part of the problem, it pays to keep track of them sometimes. Apparently AIPAC, the influential Israel lobby, enjoys paying for congressional vacations. It seems that some 80 or so politicians headed to Israel for their August recess, perhaps to inspect the infrastructure for the Christian “End Times” festivities. Your Congress at work—and play.

The 12 member “super committee” of the U.S. Congress will, beginning in September, decide what gets cut over the next ten years, while the remaining members of Congress, as expected, can claim it wasn't their fault; their hands were of course tied behind their backs.

According to MapLight these 12 members of the super committee received some $65 million from various interest groups over the past ten years, which of course doesn't mean it was illegal. But it still remains worthwhile to know who gets what and from whom. In our political system it's always about following the money. Your Congress is always at work but not necessarily for you.

The science thing

The word “theory” is seemingly hard to grasp in the United States, especially when it comes to the natural sciences. Governor Rick Perry is not the only one that is confused and befuddled. A guy in a bar may have a “theory” about blond women, but it's not a scientific theory.

Yes, gravity and evolution are actual scientific theories, and it is a fact that the Earth is getting warmer and humans just might have something to do with it. But of course, as Governor Perry has suggested, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Science Teachers Association may be involved in a massive conspiracy to fool the people. We only have ourselves to blame if we tolerate this never ending buffoonery.

Sources and additional reading:

Resilient communities

Sustainable CommunityMovements

reddit-resilientcommunities

Nuts and Bolts

Gasifier Experimenters Kit

Growing Cities—UrbanFarming

Living in Paper

Localize IT: PodPonicsGrows High-Tech Organic Produce In Shipping Containers

Additional Reading

The real cost of America'sglobal tax dodgers

The Wrong Idea

English rioters: young,poor

Gallup Poll: Americans'Satisfaction

Creating a new class of packaging material

2010-10-09T15:21:00.000-06:00

Eben Boyer, product designer, talks about creating a new class of packaging material by using a living organism called mycelium. The idea is to reduce petroleum-based packaging and the toxic waste building up across the planet. One of the most important outcomes may be the ability to use local materials or feedstocks.

What is the 'best' climate for us?

2010-10-03T13:23:00.003-06:00

For the past couple of years or so a number of articles have appeared about how people make decisions and process information. Many of the articles were written because of the seeming inability of a large number of Americans to grasp a basic understanding of climate change, let alone believe it's “real.”

Of course the deliberate misinformation by the fossil fuel industry and its assorted front groups has made it difficult, perhaps starting with a particular White House consultant in the first George Bush administration.

Frank Luntz, the consultant, was quoted in a memo back in 2003 as saying, “A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth.” He was the person that told the Bush administration that they should not use the phrase “global warming.” It would only scare the public and not be helpful to George Bush' presidency Luntz said.
.
The reality has been, however, that scientists, journalists, and environmentalists in general have not done a very good job explaining climate change in a clear, concise manner, thus many of the articles on the manner of “climate” thinking.

A particularly good article published in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society covers in some detail how humans make judgments and decisions when contemplating complex and uncertain problems. The paper is divided into (1) sampling, (2) framing, (3)comprehension, and (4) consensus building. The article provides illustrations and suggestions for those individuals responsible for explaining to non-scientists about global warming, climate change, and why it matters a great deal. See The Psychology of Global Warming.

An excellent, just released, presentation entitled “Climate Change Science” and sponsored by the American Chemical Society is well worth watching. The presenters, Michael McElroy, Professor of Environmental Science, James McCarthy, Professor of Biological Oceanography, John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science, and Robert Socolow, Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering ought not to be missed. It's an audio presentation with accompanying slides.

The presentation is not for the casual observer, but well worth the time of anyone responsible for explaining the complexity of climate change to the public in general—and probably to a great many politicians. Go to
Climate Change Science (Michael McElroy)

James McCarthy

John Christy

Robert Socolow

Forum on Climate Change Science and Consequences (to download material if Flash not available)

Source:

Thirteen municipalities and Kansas City

Photo credit: Molecular Model/jscreationzs/freedigitalphotos.net

CO2 emissions, birth and death rates

2010-10-02T06:45:00.000-06:00

See Simulation

What's the target climate

2010-09-26T10:56:00.002-06:00

Rob Dunbar, oceanographer and biogeochemist, has been involved in drilling into the sea beds, corals, and ice sheets. He wants to determine real baselines for fixing our current climate.

He points out in his presentation that we have to go back some 15 million years to find CO2 levels equal to what they are today. He also states that even for climate skeptics, there is no denying that the amount of CO2 dissolving in the ocean is leading to an increase in acidification.

Creating a healthy feudalism in America

2010-09-20T10:24:00.000-06:00

A segment of what passed for the Southern intelligentsia in the 1840s and 1850s wanted to create European feudalism in America. But as the historian Louis Hartz said more than fifty years ago in his classic The Liberal Tradition in America, “When we penetrate beneath the feudal and reactionary surface of Southern thought, we do not find feudalism; we find slavery.” He went on to say, “Fraud, alas, was the inevitable fate of Southern social thought.”

A new feudal America

Yet, after 150 years from the start of the American Civil War, is it possible that a unique American feudal society is taking shape, not just in the South but throughout the country?

Will we create a distinct American peasantry (while naturally denying its existence) protected by the self-proclaimed lord of the manor … who may be an investment banker, a coal magnate or possibly an arms dealer. As we've already invented our own Magna Carta—U.S. Constitution—we'd need an assembly of lords. The collection of empty vessels called the U.S. Congress will likely suffice for the time being. This potpourri of feudalism and the early nation state will be our teachable moment.

The Census Bureau reported last week that million of Americans are racing into poverty, in many cases people having no place to live and needing food banks to avoid real hunger. A report by the International Monetary Fund and the International Labour Organization state that nearly half of unemployed workers in the U.S. have been out of work for more than six months and the average duration is nine months. The trends are not encouraging.

The report, Projection of Jobs and Education Requirements Through 2018, offers a glimpse of America's decaying educational system in an increasingly competitive world. The report claims that the U.S. will fall short of the needed number of people requiring postsecondary degrees by 2018, state-by-state.

At the same time, as the article Infrastructure, Deficits, and Global Recovery points outs, the global economy will require high levels of infrastructural spending for economic growth, at a time when governments are calling for deficit reductions and reduced spending.

A year or so ago the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that $2.2 trillion will be needed over the next 5 years in the United States to get our infrastructure up to “acceptable” standards.

Creating dynasty trusts

For a basic primer on wealth and power in America read Wealth, Income and Power. The lord of the manor is waiting for its peasants, and for all intent and purpose we Americans are dutifully shuffling up the hill waiting for instructions in a gloomy, less democratic economic scenario--which leads finally to the people's representatives in Washington, DC.

The degree of irrelevancy of the U.S. Congress can be debated, but while the feckless Democratic party is largely a nuisance the Republican party has turned into a bizarre cult, where seemingly its combined brain power couldn't light a broom closet.

Not even a good novelist could have created a cast of character like the Republican senators and their stand on climate change. See Grand Old Deniers-Nearly All GOP Senate Candidates Deny Global Warming. In fact, as we have learned, Representative Mike Castle, who was running for the senate in the Republican primary in Delaware and who was one of the few Republicans that publicly stated his belief in the science of climate change, was defeated by a strange woman that wandered out of an old Monty Python sketch.

And finally, an op-ed piece by Tom Friedman of the New York Times.

We're lucky to be working for such a good master....

We could hang the bastard once and for all and start over again....

Some Sources:

The Challenges of Growth, Employment and Social Cohesion

The Angry Rich

Photo credit: Ruined Castle by Simon Howden/freedigitalphotos.net

How does consciousness change in history

2010-09-17T07:13:00.000-06:00

Jeremy Rifkin, author and President of the Foundation on Economic Trends, gives a fascinating talk on what he calls empathic civilization.There may be a sliver of hope for the human race if we can manage to not repress our universal potential.

Searching for a sustainable American aristocracy

2010-09-12T10:00:00.002-06:00

The article is entitled Ultra-Rich in Finance Are Meaner Than Rest of Us. On one level the piece is moderately amusing, but on a deeper level it may say something about who actually has a genuine function to perform in society. After all, some historians believe the 18th century French revolution occurred because the aristocracy no longer had a “role” to play. What did I do Monsieur Executioner? I am but a mere, benighted parasite, a very rich one.

Capitalism to the rescue

The New York Times ran an article recently on a fellow by the name of Paul Singer, the wealthy head of a $17 billion hedge fund. Mr. Singer is complaining about too much government regulation and interference today.

Singer has informed the nation, at least the part of the nation that he's familiar with, that he is going to support Republican politicians, who are presumably against government regulation and interference. After all, all these pampered Wall Street suits were doing just fine a few years back “not” being regulated.

And finally, as the New Yorker magazine expose reminded us, there are the boys from Kansas—the fossils from the Koch fossil fuel family--funders of climate denial and assorted front groups not fond of either science in general or the 21st century.

The next step

It may be time to seriously consider that much of America's current ersatz aristocracy is a dreary collection of losers with no real role to play. They and their camp followers are really an impediment to America's revitalization and prosperity.

No matter how hard we want to deny it, skirt around it, cover it up or talk about the "good" rich, class warfare is hardening in America. Our current aristocracy has no role to play. Sadly, they are not perceptive enough themselves to understand their irrelevancy.

Some Information:

The United States of Inequality

New cities: off the grid and thinking locally

Photo credit: corda strappata/Francesco Marino.freedigitalphotos.net

Global warming study in Antarctica

2010-09-08T13:21:00.000-06:00

Robert Lee Hotz, science columnist for The Wall Street Journal, discusses a global warming study being conducted in Antarctica. The study is analyzing ice more than 15,000 years old. Hotz presents the question that the scientists are asking: What is the exact relationship between levels of greenhouse gases and planetary temperatures? The relationship is extremely important as he points out.

What and where is the sustainable future

2010-09-01T13:00:00.000-06:00

Nick Marks, a statistician with the New Economics Foundation, asks us to consider another vision of the future besides one of fear and environmental degradation, a vision, according to Marks, environmentalists have been preaching far too long and which really doesn't work very well if repeated over and over again.

Happiness as a measurement of sustainability

Nick Marks also thinks that using the Gross Domestic Product or GDP as the dominant measurement of progress is one that measures everything except that which makes life worthwhile. He introduces the Happy Planet Index 2.0. Substitute the word “efficiency” for “happy” and you can begin to see that the Index is far more than some feel-good gimmick. The Index is well worth perusing and can be downloaded.

The word sustainable is used a lot today and its definition changeable, but one of the better explanations may be one offered by Paul Raskin of Harvard University and President of Tellus Institute: “It is the passing on of an undiminished world.”

History of oil and gas on the Gulf Coast

2010-08-29T13:04:00.000-06:00

What destination does our society want to reach, and how will it get there?
(Natural Capitalism, by Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, L. Hunter Lovins)

At the present time there are about 4,000 gas platforms in the Gulf. For 40 plus years the oil industry has been in the region and is closely intertwined with the economy, the culture, and the politics of the region.

Numerous judges have had to recuse themselves from numerous cases involving the oil and gas industry because of their close ties to the industry. Eco-systems have been in serious trouble for years. Marsh grasses are disappearing and dead zones are expanding. Of course the question can be legitimately asked about who makes public policy in the region? Who in fact is in charge of the people's business? Who should be held accountable?

Clean coal and its reality

2010-08-24T07:51:00.000-06:00

COAL POWER PLANT: flickr.com/devipt's photostream/Bruno & Ligia Rodrigues

Clean coal is like dry water
(Appalachian Voices)

A friend asked me why I say CCS isn't practical. Answer: it isn't.
(a tweet from Don Blakenship, CEO Massey Energy)

The letter I received this past May from Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri regarding the clean energy and climate change legislation was fairly typical among a portion of the U.S. Senate. While she acknowledged that climate change science is “real,” she then went on to offer a number of caveats about not hurting “Missouri families” while we address the real problem of climate change. Above all, according to the senator, America must invest in clean coal technology, such as carbon capture and sequestration, sometimes referred to as CCS.

Clean coal technology

At the present time there is no such thing as clean coal, in the United States nor anywhere else in the world. We can not “capture” carbon nor do we have the technology at the present time to bury it, in the United States nor anywhere else in the world, certainly on a commercial scale that would be required.

The optimists say we're ten to twenty years away from developing the technology … maybe. The pessimists say we ought to put our effort and our money into something more promising—which is? Meanwhile global warming is increasing, according to the scientists that actually study the issue, because of the burning of fossil fuels.

The U.S. Department of Energy recently released the breakdown of its $3.4 billion stimulus money for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). Some $1 billion is to be used for actual development programs. CCS.

Where does reality lead

The question has come up about “shifting liability” from industry to the taxpayer. Obama's Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage has raised the point about industry's reluctance to spend its own money until the question of liability is clearly determined. Companies see big up-front costs associated with the development of carbon sequestration facilities.

The skeptics have said—certainly in reference to the oil and nuclear industry—that if these industries are so safe as is oftentimes claimed, why do they seem to want to invest in insurance, paid for by the taxpayer instead of the industry. The phrase "limit on claims" is one heard often in the oil industry, as well as in the nuclear power industry.

Finally, Don Blakenship, who runs Massey Energy, has stated publicly, more than once, that he doesn't believe in climate change, yet his company is investing a lot of money in CCS research. The truth may yet set us free, maybe.

Some Sources:

Appalachian Voices

CCSReg Project

Coal Tattoo

Global Warming and Growing Data

2010-08-20T11:37:00.001-06:00

Decreasing Marine Phytoplankton and Survival

2010-08-09T15:24:00.010-06:00

Eelgrass, Allison King, F.M.A.P.

Phytoplankton, microscopic marine algae, is the foundation of the marine food chain, from zooplankton to the largest sea mammals on the planet – and ultimately humankind. Science News has reported on a study, published in the journal Nature, that states that phytoplankton may have declined by some 40% since 1950.

Phytoplankton produces something like one-half of the oxygen we need as well as reduces surface CO2. This is not insignificant, as scientists report that global warming is likely changing the fundamentals of marine ecology, along with the very real problems of pollution, overfishing, and the possibility of increased ocean acidification as carbon dioxide levels rise.

New Study of Phytoplankton

Michael Behrenfeld, botany professor at Oregon State University, conducted a recent study challenging the prevailing theory on how phytoplankton blooms in the ocean. The new theory Behrenfeld calls the dilution-recoupling hypothesis.

Professor Behrenfeld's hypothesis suggests—unlike the prevailing view first proposed back in 1953—that global warming will decrease ocean productivity. Behrenfeld believes oceanographers will now have to conduct a lot more research on the complexity of how oceans actually work.

Phytoplankton and Extinction

Related to the study on the decreased marine phytoplankton in the world's oceans, the Keiser Report of August 6, 2010 talked to Captain Paul Watson the founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and host of "Whale Wars" on the Animal Planet. Watson claimed that Japan and Norway, using large commercial drag trawlers, are pulling up huge amounts of phytoplankton to be used as cheap protein meal for livestock.

Unity of Knowledge

Edward O. Wilson, the well known biologist, more than ten years ago, coined the word consilience. He was telling humankind that they had to create a common framework of understanding and explanation, especially in the natural sciences but ultimately in the humanities as well.

Will we ultimately be able to see the connections, the linkages, and the cause and effect of our actions?

Related:

Findings Overturn Old Theory of Phytoplankton Growth, Raise Concerns for Ocean Productivity

Keiser Report Episode 66

Phytoplankton in Retreat

A View on Energy

2010-08-03T13:27:00.000-06:00

Burton Richter, physicist,Nobel Prize recipient, and author of Beyond Smoke and Mirrors, offers a view on energy between what he calls the climate deniers and the climate exaggerators. While he clearly believes that common sense shows that global warming is occuring,he asks us to look at what we can accomplish right now. See
Energy Efficiency.

Fossil Fuel Scam

2010-07-28T13:29:00.000-06:00

Developing Climate Alternatives

2010-07-23T06:24:00.000-06:00

While the “developed” world appears to be unable, at the present time, to address climate change in a serious way, some countries in the developing world have decided to not wait for enlightenment from the industrialized nations. They want to address global warming now. The problem is, as has been demonstrated by the recent conference in Bolivia, this particular global issue will require much more than rhetoric and moral passion. This excellent video presentation looks at some of the difficult issues.

People, People Everywhere

2010-07-14T11:59:00.000-06:00

Dr. Hans Rosling, researcher and scientist, asks us to consider how we might get to a sustainable population. Rosling believes we can maintain a sustainable world population of nine billion people, which is likely to occur by 2050. There are however a few important requirements if we wish to succeed. Go to
Population

We Have No Water

2010-07-09T15:26:00.000-06:00

Thailand, one of the major world exporter's of rice,has severe water shortages, thus preventing the planting of rice. Is it merely a natural anomaly? See
Water.

A Vanishing Ocean

2010-06-27T14:53:00.000-06:00

Brian Skerry, photojournalist, with National Geographic, gives a presentation on the world's oceans. The story is both awe-inspiring and sad. The glimmer of hope for the preservation of our oceans is that scientists know what needs to be done in order to preserve and protect our ocean ecosystems.

The problem of course is ignorance, greed, and simple human short-sightedness. See
Inspiration.

Deviant Globalization Has Arrived

2010-06-14T07:50:00.002-06:00

Nils Gilman, historian, gives a presentation at the Long Now Foundation about the development of an alternative global system. Gilman refers to it as deviant globalization.

It is real and it is growing, pushed along by the "hollowing out" of the traditional nation-state, at the moment most noticeable in the developing world, but gradually impacting the developed world. According to Gilman, money laundering alone accounts for some $1.5 to $5 trillion annually in the global economy.

Moral Arbitrage

Drill Baby Drill

2010-06-04T17:00:00.000-06:00

Pictures from the New York Times: See
Leaks.

Fearing Great Thoughts and Some Reasons Why

2010-05-30T11:49:00.000-06:00

Charles Darwin's 200th anniversary was celebrated on February 12th of this year. His book Origin of Species is arguably the most influential scientific text of all times, yet even in the 21st century the fury directed against evolutionary theory, especially among certain religious groups, continues unabated. Listen to
Species.

125 Light Bulbs

2010-05-25T08:01:00.000-06:00

David Mackay, physicist at Cambridge University, breaks down our energy consumption into small, measurable units, and then indirectly asks us what are we willing to do. Will we actually do something while we have choices or end up reacting when it may be, well, too late? Go to
Light Bulbs.

It's a New Bubble (Part 2)

2010-05-20T15:16:00.000-06:00

This is a continuation on food speculation from the Real News Network.

Plunder.

It's a New Bubble

2010-05-16T11:13:00.000-06:00

The beginning of a new bubble--in food?

From the Real News Network comes a report on the possible surge in food prices, not from supply and demand but because of the financial involvement in the commodities futures market. Once again it appears that the origin of the nonsense started several years ago in the U.S. with deregulation,making it easier for speculators to manipulate prices, frequently with slight risks to themselves.

Plunder.

Warming has Stopped!

2010-05-11T06:31:00.000-06:00

From Climate Crock of the Week we sadly learn the GLOBAL WARMING is very much alive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M

Lowest Common Denominator

2010-05-06T06:09:00.002-06:00

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
(John Kenneth Galbraith, economist 1908-2006)

It was vile beyond all vileness.
(Every Man Dies Alone by Hans Fallada)

This was not our accident.
(Tony Hayward, CEO British Petroleum)

Impossible things (like unending economic growth) won't happen just because people want them to.
(Richard Heinberg, author, energy consultant, senior Fellow-in-Residence at Post Carbon Institute)

No mitigation measures other than those required by regulation and BP policy will be employed to avoid, diminish or eliminate potential impacts on environmental resources.
(BP submission to U.S. Minerals Management Service, prior to drilling in region of current oil catastrophe)

As the Gulf Coast oil disaster continues to unfold, it is patently clear that the only truly safe way to extract oil is not to drill for it, hardly likely in the foreseeable future. At this point we can but merely hope for the “best” in a very bad situation.

But beyond the immediate disaster lies our real problem, America's lowest common denominator. It is now guiding our corporate life, our political life, and seemingly our moral life.

From the worst of the climate deniers, to the banality of drill-baby-drill, to adept street hustlers like a Glenn Beck or a Sarah Palin a large segment of the American public and its elected representatives have chosen ignorance and simple greed over reason and logic when it comes to climate change and energy ... among other things.

As has been stated often enough, we need an “energy” Marshall Plan in order to develop far more diverse energy sources. We need a carbon tax to push us in new directions. We need a climate and energy policy not written by the fossil fuel industry. Yes we need a genuine conservation policy in the U.S. Most important we need a citizenry that ultimately understands that living “smart” is not a lifestyle choice. Finally, we need a sense of economic fairness in America and a determination to flush down the toilet free market zealotry. It's as ludicrous as the divine right of kings

Will all this come to pass? There's a good chance it won't anytime soon. But if you're ready to give up, just imagine the devastation that is now occurring in the Gulf to marine and wildlife, to entire ecosystems, and to ordinary humans trying to make a living. That should be incentive enough to keep going on and not give up.
----------------------
Largest Oil Donors to U.S. Senate

Chevron, Koch Industries, Exxon, Valero Energy, Marathon Oil

Largest Recipients in U.S. Senate

Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), David Vitter (R-LA), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Robert Bennett (R-UT), John Cornyn R-TX

Largest Oil Donors to U.S. House

Koch Industries, Exxon Mobil, Valero Energy, Chevron Corp., Williams Companies

Largest Recipients in U.S. House

Joe Barton (R-TX), Chet Edwards (D-TX), Michael Conway (R-TX), Eric Cantor (R-VA), Peter Olson (R-TX)

Source: Follow the Oil Money (oilmoney.priceofoil.org )

-------

Resource Database for Gulf of Mexico

Drilling to Hell

2010-05-03T17:58:00.000-06:00

Ricki Ott, marine toxicologist and author of Not One Drop, who lived in Alaska during the Exxon Valdez oil spill, was interviewed on Democracy Now. She talks about the fossol fuel industry and its power to avoid responsibility in major environmental disasters. See
Oil Slick.

History Not Repeated?

2010-05-02T15:00:00.000-06:00

David Eagleman, neuroscientist, discusses his book Six Easy Steps to Avert the Collapse of Civilization.
He believes the internet may be the "key to our survival." His contention clearly raises a lot of intriguing questions, not the least of which is his 6th step: try not to run out of energy. It is an extremely interesting presentation sponsored by The Long Now Foundation. See
The Net.

Authentic American Traitors

2010-04-26T05:09:00.000-06:00

The financial crisis of 2007-2009 has made Jefferson [Thomas] a little less out of fashion.
(13 Bankers by Simon Johnson and James Kwak)

Ira Glass' This American Life on National Public Radio is one of the best listening experiences you'll likely have. Glass takes specific American themes on each of his segments and usually provides a compelling story, one that often lingers long after the program is over.

In particular is the one on the creation of a hedge fund that contributed to our global financial disaster and caused considerable pain for a great number of ordinary Americans.

While the program provides a "clear" explanation of the arcane world of credit default swaps, bundling, shorting, and equity tranch it is much more about astonishing greed, stupidity and, yes, betting against America itself. Those nasty terrorists couldn't have done it better. Is the system dysfunctional?

As well, while not discussed on the program, the question easily comes to mind whether or not our present political system is capable of making radical changes. No, markets are not self-correcting ... nor are they "efficient."

We Americans are angry in a general sense but clearly many of us are not really certain in a specific way about what exactly we are angry about. We may "throw the bums out," but we may also regret what we have created. This 40 minute segment is well worth listening to. Go to
Eat My Shorts

Red Herrings & MacGuffins

2010-04-23T05:49:00.000-06:00

It's more than a game. It's an institution.

(Thomas Hughes, 1822-1896)

President Ronald Reagan, the “Gipper,” took his lines seriously. It was just like a movie script, when he told Americans that trickle-down economics would be the secret of America's success. Let the markets be free!

Of course this gibberish has been uttered periodically throughout our history. It wasn't Reagan's idea, but he apparently believed it with all his heart in the 1980s, when he mouthed every cliché that was handed to him. It's been a great movie ever since.

William J. Astore's article, “Democratic Kleptocracy,” in Asia Times is worth the read. See Imitation.

The Snake-Oil Show (1)

2010-04-19T05:21:00.000-06:00

For a great many people facts, especially the scientific kind with peer reviewed studies and extensive analysis, will never get in the way of dearly held beliefs, especially if the facts might foreshadow significant change and of course inconvenience.

Climate change is one of those complex issues that befuddles and confuses a lot of us. Add a large dose of deliberate confusion by the fossil fuel industry and a broad lack of scientific understanding by the public in general and you get climate denial.

Lord Monckton, a character out of a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta or a Monte Python sketch, is a popular figure on the climate denial circuit. It is worth revisiting his road show periodically to understand that climate change is not comedy. See Pure Imagination.

Ask the Weatherman

2010-04-15T08:16:00.000-06:00

Some things are worth repeating over and over again. As we have learned lately from various polls and surveys, most Americans get their "understanding" of climate change (or not) from their local weatherperson. Climate science and meteorolgy are not the same thing. It becomes even more confusing for most people when denialists deliberately attempt to mislead. Once again:
Raining in Mutchkin Land.

Have a Koch

2010-04-11T06:21:00.000-06:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Climate for All

2010-04-05T09:32:00.000-06:00

All shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well
(Julian of Norwich, English mystic, 1342-1416)

Dear, Mr. President,

So, we're going to start drilling for oil and gas along some of our coastlines or at least seriously examine the possibility. Just what is your “grand” climate and energy policy to be? Will it actually be an authentic policy? Is America at this point capable of producing a climate and energy policy?

I have read a lot of the views from assorted pundits, “experts,” and interested observers as to why you're implementing this policy. It's to provide political cover, some have suggested, if peak oil really slams into us within the next few years.

You bet those old Chinese communists and ambitious technocrats in the politburo don't want angry peasants coming after them. Kill a rain forest for job security. India's one billion plus just wants its day in the sun. Brazil is merely tired of the gringos and, well, Japan wants to continue killing whales and dolphins, and who needs tuna anyway. It's only cultural cuisine, you meat eaters you. Did you know that it sometimes takes more than an hour for a whale to die a horrible death after being harpooned by one of those state-of-the-art spears?

Yeah, no one wants to contemplate a barrel of oil closing in on $200. It's going to be hard though to reduce our foreign oil import of 12 million barrels a day, even if we dig up America extracting shale oil. Michael Lynch, an energy consultant, said if you were “really” serious you'd open up the entire California coast. Hell, let's just drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Someone once said there's nothing in Alaska anyway but deadbeat fathers escaping child support payments.

We understand you have to give the opposition something if you want a genuine climate bill within the next few years. But I bet in your heart-of-hearts you know we ain't going to drill our way out of this, even if the cowboy plunderers that run the western states start drilling under Brigham Young University. Well, that's a thought....

A sort of a problem is that there is no rational opposition political party, Mr. President. There is a nasty, not very bright political cult. I know you want to break bread with Senator Lindsey Graham, who passes for an enlightened member of the Republican cult these days. Seemingly he believes climate change may be genuine. That's a dangerous position to take. Truly he's demonstrated a profile in courage.

I'm glad we now have some fuel efficiency standards, better late than never, maybe. I've heard that this could reduce oil consumption by 1.2 million barrels per day by 2020. But then, why does Senator Murkowski from Alaska want to roll back those fuel efficiency standards? Well her father, a former governor, was not terribly bright either. Maybe Senator Landrieu from the progressive state of Louisiana told her that fuel efficiency was encroaching on state rights. And who the devil is the National Automobile Dealers Association? They want to block the government's ability to regulate global warming emissions. Are they fronting for Islamic terrorists?

This naturally brings us to the U.S. Congress, specifically the United State Senate, little more than a dysfunctional debating society. Now if we ignore the members of the Republican cult, boot out a dozen or so Democratic senators, we may just have a quorum to begin debating climate change legislation and some energy issues.

I know, I know many environmentalists have said no drilling, no nukes, no biofuels, just get that alternative energy on line right now. Yup, better hitch up old Ned to the buckboard and head into town for some kerosene. In the meantime I'll be working hard at creating my resilient community.

No, I don't want us to drill in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas off the northern coast of Alaska, and I don't trust the fossil fuel industry, the night crawlers that have funded the climate deniers, and I'm well aware of the deep confusion among perhaps the majority of the electorate, and I'm angry at what I think is you having wasted more than a year screwing around with bipartisanship and a lot of timid incrementalism, but you're it right now.

You clearly have a lot of educating to do. Convincing Americans that it's never going back to the good ol' days won't be easy. Telling Americans that tearing up the planet and killing all life on it won't get them economic prosperity, job security or a future for their children is not something they want to hear. After all, we Americans are exceptional. Best hire some very smart behavioral science specialists and get on with the business of talking to average Americans, the sooner the better. Just maybe we've a 50-50 chance.

Sincerely,

A Citizen

The Antichrist is Among Us

2010-03-29T11:23:00.002-06:00

Ignorance breeds monsters to fill up the vacancies of the soul that are unoccupied by the verities of knowledge.
(Horace Mann, 19th-century educator)

How well informed are you? Which state has proposed the following changes to its school textbooks: (1) remove any reference to the “Age of Enlightenment,” (2) demonstrate the positive contributions to America of the late senator Joe McCarthy and the enlightened leader of the confederacy Jefferson Davis and (c) take Thomas Jefferson off the list of revolutionary 18th century thinkers. Jefferson of course made the profound mistake of talking and writing about the separation of church and state.

If you said the Texas Board of Education you are clearly well informed. You'll still get some points if you said Mississippi, Alabama or even Utah. Shame on you Texas, not for not knowing that a collection of fruit flies took over the Board of Education, but letting it stand now that you do know the fifteenth century is in charge of your state's education. For the rest of us … how Texas textbooks go, frequently goes the rest of the country.

Perhaps the city of Austin, Texas will secede from the state and declare itself an independent city-state like ancient Athens. Of course it will need to acquire solid alliances in order to avoid being overrun by barbarians. Perhaps Germany would be interested or even China. Of course the United States could declare war on Texas and send in the Special Forces to round up all the white primitives and lock them up in the FEMA concentration camps, even though my militia informants within the Department of Homeland Security cannot determine the exact location of these camps.

Tom Friedman wrote an interesting piece in the NYT on 21 March entitled “America's Real Dream Team.” In his piece he mentioned names like Sunanda Sharma, Yale Wang Fan, and Otana Agape Jakpor. Yes, of course ex-political hacks like Tom Tancredo might declare that these aren't American names. But of course they are.

These are some of the American high school students who were among the 40 finalists in the 2010 Intel Talent Search, which identifies some of the best math and science high school students in America. Thank goodness we still have immigration.

A recent Harris poll declared that 24% of Republicans believe President Obama may be the Antichrist. Oh well, that's better than the 57% who believe our president is a Muslim or the 75% that believe he's one of “dem” socialists.

Dear Progressives, there is no sideline for you to stand on and hope it will all go away. Nor can you merely wait for the Democratic party to possibly turn itself into an instrument of enlightenment. Get busy. Demographic changes are slow and plenty of damage can be done in a short period of time. Do you really want the Texas Board of Education running the country?

Exploring the Word

2010-03-17T12:10:00.000-06:00

What are the sounds that words make? How do they all tie together? Where will this journey ultimately lead us? I have no idea. But that's the fun in trying. Not that sustainability and the environment have become any less important, if anything, they loom even larger in significance, especially with the depth of denial and apathy that has spread across our planet.

So are there words to get us to think in other ways? Do you have something you want to say? We're exploring radio dramas, podcasts, interviews, videos and of course the written word. Come visit us at gumbeater.com and tell us what you think. Better yet, what do you have to contribute?

A Little Pollution

2010-01-23T12:49:00.004-06:00

Can't stop progress ... the price you have to pay ... corporations are people too ... job growth ... it's not my problem ... the government would collapse ... you want to be poor ... children will adapt ... environmentalists don't understand how business works ... national pride ... the best economic system in the world .. and, a planet of fools....

Considering a Rational Morality

2010-01-21T07:13:00.000-06:00

This interview with Bertrand Russell, philosopher and mathematician, took place in 1959.

A Dying River

2010-01-18T17:16:00.001-06:00

No fresh water means no oxygen.

Deniers Love Saturday Night Fever

2010-01-16T18:58:00.000-06:00

Gathering the Pieces

2010-01-14T17:01:00.000-06:00

Of course there are reasons to be skeptical whether or not the traditional nation-state, at least the structure we've had for the past 200 years or so, will be with us by the end of the 21st century.

Climate change, resource scarcity, population increase, economic decay, superstition and ignorance, along with the growing influence of non-state actors across the planet are likely going to place huge strains on all nations, even the most powerful. The question of “legitimacy” could very well gather momentum among more and more people. But what could replace the traditional state?

The short answer is that we don't know at this point, but resilient communities, transition towns, tribal networks were, until quite recently, ideas espoused by only a handful of people, often on the fringe of society, but which is now no longer the case. The transition movement, for example is spreading across the globe. In the U.S. go to http://www.transitionus.org/ Transition United States.

John Robb of Global Guerrillas, who has written a lot on asymmetrical warfare and “system disruption,” has a couple of interesting pieces on resiliency. See
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2010/01/why-a-resilient-community-network.html Why a Resilient Community Network? As well read
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2010/01/journal-tribal-opportunity-space.html Journal: Tribal Opportunity Space.

As we slowly get beyond abstract ideas and put together specific proposals and detailed plans for a particular community or region, we will likely see a widespread interest in the development of alternative “states” of various types.

Searching for Insanity

2010-01-12T15:09:00.000-06:00

Why Create Resilient Communities

2010-01-10T16:47:00.000-06:00

Chris Hedges, journalist, offered a bleak, personal critique of the American “empire” back on December 28th in New York. His view is that the current system can not be reformed no matter the degree of tentative tinkering we undertake.
The question still remains how we begin the serious creation of new resilient communities, which likely means we will have to confront at some point an increasingly undemocratic status quo. See
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2009/12/18/chris_hedges Empire of Illusion.

Five Centimeters of Life

2010-01-08T17:03:00.000-06:00

We are using up our dirt across the planet, which means we are threatening all life on Earth. In the U.S. alone two acres of dirt disappears every minute of every day. It is not sustainable.

Sleeping with Bots

2010-01-06T07:19:00.000-06:00

Daniel Suarez, software engineer and author, gives a fascinating presentation on what is referred to as “Bot-Mediated Reality.”

Bots are software applications that search, retrieve, and act on information. It has a great deal to do with the seemingly inexorable drive to efficiency, which likely means fewer people making decisions. Will we humans lose more and more control?

The implications are significant. There are plenty of reasons to believe that our traditional institutional structures are not capable of adapting to the changes? See
http://fora.tv/2008/08/08/Daniel_Suarez_Daemon_Bot-Mediated_Reality Changing Reality

So What Follows

2010-01-04T07:21:00.000-06:00

No I don't think things will be quite the same, even when the global recession “shakes out.” I believe the discussion of resilient communities will shortly go beyond a debate among the few to the necessity of the many.

Barring some as yet undiscovered technological breakthrough or a remarkable change in how Homo sapiens have acted, at least since the beginning of the Neolithic era 10,000 years ago, we are going to have to address just how we live and how we govern ourselves in a radically changing world. I don't think there will be a choice.

While what is likely to happen is perhaps speculative fiction at this point, the pieces are moving closer together. Climate change, resource scarcity, populations increase, non-state power and influence, changing geopolitical alignment are all factors that will affect us individually and collectively.

The fact that there is no 100 percent certainty doesn't mean we don't buy insurance, have our cars tuned up periodically or get an annual physical. The Oil Drum ran a series of articles back in early November 2008 on a changing suburbia. Is it viable or isn't it? How might it change? Since November 2008 a great deal has happened. The comments following the article are equally worthwhile. Go to
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4720 A Resilient Suburbia

Peer Review 101

2010-01-02T07:30:00.000-06:00

An easily understood explanation on how scientific peer review works. It also addresses the stolen e-mails that allegedly expose, among the climate denialists, that there is a widespread scientific conspiracy or fraud is lurking about or global warming is now debunked or other feverish fantasies thought up by denialists.

It's Your Money

2009-12-31T07:11:00.002-06:00

Give some serious thought to "moving it" in 2010

Free Virtual School

2009-12-29T06:55:00.000-06:00

As we move away from the old societal structures, how we learn and process information is likely going to change. The one shoe fits all approach will give way to a more diverse learning model, especially as education will truly become a necessary lifetime endeavor.

One of the more interesting approaches I've come across is The Kahn Academy, a not-for-profit organization with its mission “of providing a high quality education to anyone, anywhere.” With over 1,000 videos, covering everything from basic arithmetic to evolutionary biology, The Kahn Academy provides a virtual and free education across the globe. This site is definitely worth visiting. You can look through the various videos. Go to http://www.khanacademy.org/ The Kahn Academy.

Saving $14 Billion

2009-12-27T11:44:00.000-06:00

So how much food could the average person grow within 100 square feet? What if millions of individuals got rid of those drug addicted lawns and planted gardens instead? For a really interesting article go to
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Organic-Gardening/Square-Foot-Gardening-Food.aspx?utm_content=12.04.09+FG&utm_campaign=FG&utm_source=iPost&utm_medium=email Grow $700 of Food in 100 Square Feet!

Christmas White Wine

2009-12-23T06:20:00.000-06:00

Sustainability & Local Government

2009-12-20T08:47:00.000-06:00

ICLEI-Local Government for Sustainability has issued its 2009 report. This is an association of local governments focusing on climate protection and sustainable development. There are 600 members in the United States. How has your region done? How has your city done? See http://www.icleiusa.org/action-center/affecting-policy/ICLEI%20USA%20Measuring%20Up%20Report%202009.pdf 2009 Annual Report

More Climate Data

2009-12-18T06:14:00.000-06:00

The Annual Global Climate Risk Index for 2010 has just been released. The index shows the vulnerability of each country in the world and the financial costs of climate change. In terms of potential financial loss, the U.S., according to the report, ranks number one on the index. The methodology and the limitation of the report are explained on pp 4 and 13. See http://www.preventionweb.net/files/11973_GlobalClimateRiskIndex2010.pdf Risk Index 2010

Indirect Carbon Market

2009-12-15T17:51:00.000-06:00

Frontline World has a terrific video piece on one of the first “carbon preserves” in the world located in Brazil. As carbon trading begins to take shape, large international corporations look for ways to develop carbon “offsets.” It's how this particular story in one of the most biodiverse forests along Brazil's Atlantic coast started.

It has become a clash of the numerous stakeholders, from indigenous people to farmers, from the black market to preservation, from food to climate change. It is an important story because we are trying to balance how we can survive and prosper on this one planet together. Go to
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/carbonwatch/moneytree/ Brazil: The Money Market

Stolen E-Mail

2009-12-14T06:23:00.000-06:00

Like it or not, for the time being, environmental journalists and climate scientists cannot ignore the continual mischief, cherry picking, and outright lies of the climate change denialists. In addition to doing a better job explaining climate change to the general public and actively supporting a far stronger science curriculum in schools, scientists and journalists need to demonstrate how climate denial more often than not has little to do with actual science. Too much is at stake.

Spreading the Food

2009-12-12T07:26:00.000-06:00

Yes, hunger is a very real problem in America and getting worse. Here is a way communities and backyard gardeners can help. It may seem like a small endeavor but it's a path toward feeding people and building resilient communities throughout the country. Go to
http://www.ampleharvest.org/index.php Ample Harvest

Boomerang and Flocking

2009-12-10T06:43:00.000-06:00

Is the key cultural change? Marketing people and advertisers have been studying consumer behavior for well over 50 years. In fact, mass marketing began in the United States in the 1920s. Advertisers have to know why what people buy what stuff. Mistakes are costly.

It's the broad areas of environment and energy that have lagged way behind the “detergent” aisle. We've all heard the familiar complaint: “Why don't they get it, we've given them information and handed out brochures. Can't they see it?” Of course we are now beginning to understand a little better just who can not see. We have perhaps met the enemy.

Mistakes are going to be very costly for all of us if we do not get the environmental priorities figured out. How might a better understanding of human behavior move us toward energy efficiency, among other things? See
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-11-30-making-buildings-efficient-it-helps-to-understand-human-behavior Making buildings more efficient: It helps to understand human behavior.

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/11/19/19climatewire-how-understanding-the-human-mind-might-save-16335.html?pagewanted=1 How Understanding the Human Mind Might Save the World from CO2.

Some Farming Visionary (3)

2009-12-08T18:21:00.000-06:00

If the goal is to create sustainable societies, how does the natural world work and how might we learn to be part of it?

Some Farming Visionary (2)

2009-12-07T07:07:00.000-06:00

How can we fit in and survive within the natural world?

Some Farming Visionary (1)

2009-12-04T20:20:00.001-06:00

How does critical thinking, observation, and common sense start the process of change? Watch this video.

Color World None

2009-11-30T06:52:00.001-06:00

Could we really do it? I think we could. I saw the movie The Road on “Black Friday,” an adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's novel, who also wrote No Country for Old Men. I'll leave it to the literary and film critics to analyze and dissect the film. This movie is about a lot of things but most important it is about a dying planet, in the literal sense.

While not specified in the novel or the movie we humans, in numerous ways, decided our world was not sacred nor was sustainability an important priority. The film will undoubtedly elicit a range of feelings among the moviegoers, but one of mine was anger. We humans are the supreme dysfunctional narcissists.

In The Road there are no plants remaining, trees are dying and falling over, and all the animals have gone. No, life cannot continue without the prosaic carbon cycle. Some will say that we could conceivably regulate the carbon cycle artificially, food could be synthesized using genetic engineering, and terraforming of the moon, asteroids, and even Mars might be possible someday. Should we start now, just in case?

The movie turns the whole idea of the “glorious” revolution and “rights” into a final, very black comedy. On the Left, workers of the world are not going to unite and sing The Internationale; on the Right, all the stupid guns will run out of bullets and all the silly camouflage uniforms will simply rot away. Now imagine the last dying gasp of an unpleasant species--cannibalism.

As I grow older I find religious fundamentalism of all varieties increasingly repugnant. A collection of death cults conjured up in feverish imaginations during the late Bronze and early Iron Age. For some it is a trip to magic kingdom, for others “may you rot in hell,” wherever that is. But for all, don't worry about planet Earth or all the non-human life, for the Entity will forgive your transgressions, just plead your case only a little. Now that ethereal view is truly a license to kill, maim, and slaughter.

We know the carnage the developed world has wrought upon our planet, but the developing world is anxious to catch up. China is working hard to possibly be the worst plunderer of natural resources in human history, Brazil rationalizes on a daily basis why just one more acre of the rainforest can be cut down for cattle ranches and soybean plantations, and India announces with pride that it now has an inexpensive internal combustion engine for the masses. No longer are those awful bicycles needed.

I'll take the sunset dipping over a wine-dark sea, a hawk nesting in a city skyscraper, a wolf howling to the moon, a whale leaping high into the air, and a child smiling with pure delight while examining the earthworm at his or her feet.

This earthly world is really worth “protecting.” The question should never be why. Now is the time to be working hard to create resilient communities that connect with everything and everyone in some way.

Only a Return

2009-11-23T15:01:00.000-06:00

Within the next three weeks I'll be posting articles on my Sanctuary blog, which I started back in 2004 and stopped in August 2007, in order to write Earth Notes, an environmental and sustainability blog with the Kansas City Star.

Two plus years however is long enough and it's time to do something else. Earth Notes will simply cease to exist.

So what will I do with Sanctuary? For the time being I'll focus on the broad area of sustainability. Much has changed in the world and certainly in the U.S. over the past two years. How do we go about creating a sustainable world, sustainable countries, sustainable cities, and sustainable communities in the 21st century? Could we all be embarking on something brand new?

I'd certainly like to post original articles from other writers on sustainability issues, ideas both big and small, keeping the posts to 300 words maximum. Comments are of course always welcomed. We'll see what happens.

A Short Vacation

2007-10-10T07:48:00.000-06:00

I've been taking some time off to write an environmental and sustainability blog for the Kansas City Star. Please visit. Your comments, ideas and suggestions are appreciated. While some of the material will center on the Kansas City region, much of it will go way beyond the local.

It's call KC Earth Notes. You can find it at kcearthnotes.kansascity.com

Just Stop Breathing

2007-08-26T13:28:00.000-06:00

Summer in America is almost over. The reason we know this is that Labor Day is only a week away. Of course it has nothing to do with labor, only celebrating the end of summer, as well as children reluctantly returning to not so rare mediocre schools.

Speaking of mediocre, a recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll claims that we adults don't read much. One in four adults, according to the poll, didn't read any books over the past year. One of those polled said reading just made him sleepy. He preferred relaxing by his swimming pool.

And speaking of education, did you know that the Grand Canyon is big enough to hold the entire population of the world? What about the fact that the fertilizer-choked dead zone at the mouth of the Mississippi is larger than New Jersey? These facts and others can be found in Alan Weisman's book The World Without Us.

What would our planet be like if we humans just suddenly vanished? This is the theme of Weisman's intriguing book. The good news is Earth would likely recover from human depredation. Of course the bad news is that this is only a "what if" question. If we do manage to do ourselves in, it will likely not be with a whimper. A good nuclear holocaust, for example, might just turn our entire world into a floating asteroid.

But in fairness to Mr. Weisman, he suggests that some positive changes might result even if humanity didn't completely disappear. The catch, however, is that we'd have to make some drastic changes in both our behavior and, yes, in our population. Weisman believes we would have to reduce our population by 2100 to where it was in the 19th century, less than 2 billion people. How do we begin?

The Poor Rich

2007-08-05T14:05:00.000-06:00

The New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof recently wrote an article about his government payment of $588 a year for not farming some land he owns in Oregon. The article is not about his small payment but about the American farm subsidy program, which is more often than not corporate welfare for agribusiness.

Ken Cook, president of Environmental Working Group, said a few months ago that, "America's farm subsidy system is broken." This has been stated before but up until recently the average person would have had difficulty gathering information on these programs. They were shrouded in mystery and unclear as to what the rationale might be for passing out taxpayer money.

Something like two-thirds of U.S. farmers do not receive any subsidy payments. Farm program benefits have been highly concentrated and have often not rewarded land stewardship and improving the environment. But now there is a web site called MULCH.

You can find out what your congressional representatives are doing in terms of approving farm subsidies and who is receiving them. It's a step in asking some basic questions like why or why not are we subsidizing certain commodities, why or why not are certain farmers (or pseudo-farmers) receive payments, and what is the "nonpolitical" reason(s) for making the decision.

At its worst the billions spent on the farm subsidy program are the kind of welfare capitalism that America increasingly can no longer afford. It's in our self-interest in knowing who is doing what and for whom, especially in terms of food and the land it is grown on.

A Proposal Modest

2007-07-25T13:02:00.000-06:00

Would they actually buy and sell it if it were on the market? How would you react if you were told that global warming will cause the death of untold numbers of people, but there was a way to utilize all the corpses by making a new Exxon oil product? What better idea than transforming dead people into oil and calling the new product Vinoleum. Is this not another brilliant example of the market-economy at its best?

Two individuals posing as representatives of Exxon-Mobil and the National Petroleum Council were the keynote speakers at a conference in Calgary, Alberta, where they introduced their "new" product. The attendees listened politely until the two imposters passed out "commemorative candles" to the audience. The candles were supposedly made from the flesh of an Exxon janitor, who had died as a result of cleaning up a toxic spill.

If you like guerrilla theater, you'll love The Yes Men But what might it say about us? How easy is it to get us to suspend disbelief under the right circumstances? Of course Exxon over the years has spent millions of dollars supporting various front groups that called global warming a hoax.

If our capacity to imagine doesn't go much beyond the exploitation of Alberta's oil sands and the development of liquid coal, a worldwide environmental disaster will likely increase significantly. Perhaps we could chat with Lee Raymond, the former CEO of Exxon and now the head of the National Petroleum Council.

Hm-m. But just possibly Mr. Raymond would be willing to volunteer himself for the betterment of humanity ... and he is a large man. Would he be a good test case for VINOLEUM?

Making Smarter Love

2007-07-16T15:18:00.000-06:00

We don't choose to talk about it in the industrialized world when listing all the individual to-do things for the environment, like changing to CFL lighting or turning up the A/C a couple of degrees. Governments don't talk about it when debating cap-and-trade schemes, carbon taxes, and renewable energy, all directed toward reducing greenhouse gases, global warming and lessening the negative impact of climate change.

In the poorest nations on the planet it's frequently considered a meaningless abstraction--and distraction--from the "real" problems. Occasionally it rears its unwanted head and then disappears just as quickly. The lurking monster in the room is of course human population increase.

According to Population Connection, some 13 million additional humans will appear on planet Earth from July 1 of this year to early September. Depending on United Nations' population projections in 2006, we could go from the current 6.5 billion people to a low of 7.8 billion or as high as 10.8 billion by 2050. Only the most naive, blind or willfully ignorant (a vast number) will continue to harbor the delusion that the pressures on our finite natural resources will not be enormous, with a greater number of people chasing after those shrinking resources, from water to fertile land to a secure place to live.

A number of scientists and economists believe that even if we were actually committed enough worldwide to cut carbon emissions 40% by 2050, a 40% increase in human population (to 9.1 billion) would likely cancel out the corresponding CO2 reductions.

There have been projections that suggest our planet could sustain a population as high as 12 billion people. Of course these forecasts point out that some drastic changes are required in how we humans think and live, as well as some striking technological breakthroughs not yet discovered. We ought not to hold our breath for the 'reptilian" brain to wither away anytime soon.

Population pressure is not going away just because we don't want to bring it into climate change discussions. We are the one species that needs to talk about it openly and consistently and demonstrate some intestinal fortitude by doing so.

Disposable Disposition

2007-06-27T14:18:00.000-06:00

"Somewhere west of Laramie there's a broncho-busting, steer-roping girl who knows what I'm talking about." This is the first sentence of the now famous 173-word advertisement for the Jordan Motor Car Company that appeared in the 1920's The age of modern advertising began in this decade.

By 1925 seventy percent of the total income for magazines and newspapers came from ad revenue. Ad agencies with their well-paid specialists opened up offices on Madison Avenue in New York. Mass marketing had arrived. Anything could be sold to the public these modern day alchemists told their clients, and they were mostly right.

Some 78 years after the American stock market crashed in 1929 ending the Roaring Twenties, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, we Americans are number one in the world in terms of the amount of garbage and rubbish we produce. The average American manages to create about 4.5 pounds per day. Our closest competitor, Canada, generates around 3.75 pounds of trash daily.

The typical American today is exposed to about 3,000 advertising messages a day. Worldwide, global corporations spend more than $600 billion a year to advertise.

The United States has become the quintessential land of hyper-consumption, planned obsolescence, disposable "stuff" and, yes, credit card debt. E-waste (computers, televisions, copy machines, etc.) is now the fastest growing portion of our disposable world. Much of this discarded equipment, containing lead and numerous toxic chemicals, is shipped to developing nations, where it is stripped down, usually by people that have no idea of the kinds of risks they and their children may be exposed to.

We are, however, according to The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, no longer the leading producer in the world of carbon dioxide, the most pervasive greenhouse gas and contributor to global warming. China surpassed us in 2006 in the amount of annual CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere.

China's economy is growing rapidly and, of the more than 1 billion inhabitants, it's estimated that approximately 300 million are aspiring members of China's newly expanding "middle class." At least another one billion people in the developing world are right behind China; they as well are determined to acquire the disposable life. "I want to be like Mike," as the Nike commercial once proclaimed proudly throughout the world.

Bada Bada Bing

2007-06-11T15:33:00.000-06:00

The Sopranos, America's fictional, dysfunctional family, finally faded into the sunset Sunday night. But I woke up this morning to learn once again that real dysfunction is alive and well in the U.S.A. and healthier than ever.

The latest Gallup Poll pointed out that the majority of people surveyed, some 1,007 adults, believed that "both" are likely explanations when the question was asked whether we humans are a result of God's creation or evolution over millions of years. Yes, those that subscribe to the creationism theory believe we arrived in our present form within the last 10,000 years--the beginning of the Neolithic period as scientists often refer to the time period.

Not surprisingly, 68% of people that call themselves Republicans don't believe in evolution. Unfortunately, however, 37% of Independents and 40% of Democrats do not believe in evolution, not insignificant minorities.

I liked the ending of The Sopranos because, while offering some possibilities, we weren't absolutely certain what would happen to Tony and his family, sort of like how the world really works. We can speculate. Are you inclined to be optimistic or pessimistic?

Around and Around

2007-06-04T07:53:00.000-06:00

Missouri, the state where I live, according to an Associated Press analysis, has increased its carbon dioxide emissions some 32% between 1990 and 2003, while the state's population grew no more than 13% by the A.P. reckoning. The primary reason seems to be the increasing use of coal as an energy source.

About half of America's electricity comes from burning coal at this point in time in the United States. It's "cheap" and plentiful. States also vary considerably in their greenhouse gas emissions, largely due to decisions to use coal an an energy source.

The state of Texas emits more CO2 than most countries do. On a per-person use, Wyoming, one of the least populous states, sends out more carbon dioxide than any other state in the U.S. Both of these states burn a lot of coal. Electricity is cheaper in these states than many others but of course pollution and greenhouse gases are not remotely interested in state boundaries and travel everywhere, including to those states that don't use coal an an energy source.

Idaho, on a per person basis, emits the least amount of CO2. California, the most populous state, has decreased its CO2 emissions more than 10% from 1990 to 2003, and New York has lowered its CO2 levels. These states have either outlawed the burning of coal or have sought alternatives to reduce its impact.

There is no particular reason to think that the U.S. will develop national energy standards anytime soon or that the world will develop global standards to reduce greenhouse gases in the next several years. Perhaps if we decide to put a value on clean air, water and biodiversity we may have a chance to get beyond infantile "voluntary" mechanisms in the U.S. and belligerent "entitlement" from countries like China and India.

In the meantime turn the pressure up.

More Snake Oil

2007-05-29T11:02:00.000-06:00

The latest news out of the U.S. Congress is that "coal" legislation is working its way through the various committees in the House and the Senate. The coal industry is lobbying hard and politicians from the coal producing states are working just as hard to make sure it becomes law, the sooner the better.

The coal industry wants large loan guarantees (public subsidies) for construction of plants, the type of facility that can convert coal to liquid fuel, a technology that has been around for some time. "Energy independence" is the siren's song whispered in the politician's ear, like the magic of corn-based ethanol that was touted among Midwestern ethanol producers and their pliable politicians not so long ago.

Dr. James Hanson, in an address to the National Press Club last February, recommended five steps we as a country--and ultimately the globe--need to take if we want to address global warming in a serious way. The first recommendation was a "moratorium" on coal-fired power plants until sequestration can be done on a commercial basis, probably some five to ten years away.

Send your Washington politician a friendly reminder that he or she cannot talk about legislation to deal with greenhouse gases and renewable energy and, at the same time, consider passing billions of dollars in subsidies for the construction of power plants that release huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Products Not Micronized

2007-05-07T16:20:00.000-06:00

I never knew there were so many "organic" sunscreens until I read dozens of e-mails recently on a list-serve-discussion group. Most of the products were supposedly all natural ... Earth friendly ... essential oils of plants and above all, better for you.

I learned that grapefruit seed extract might have "high antimicrobial" properties. I was informed that I probably should look for products that contain zinc oxide and titanium dioxide--but--which are not micronized or nanoparticles, because they might pass through the cell walls and into the bloodstream. Last but not least some of these "good" sunscreens/sunblocks could be contaminated with parabens.

Green products and green businesses are popping up everywhere, which is hardly news to most people. And of course, the expression carbon-neutral is seen frequently in print nowadays as well as discussed on television. The question remains however just what is carbon-neutral and what products are genuinely good. Above all, who is actually determining the Truth?

What we do know is that the market obviously believes that "green" is growing and likely to be very profitable in the not too distant future. But is there the possibility of moving from a healthy skepticism to mere cynicism toward all these various claims? Yet, should we not be happy that a kind of environmental consciousness is slowly spreading to the general population, regardless of whether or not some assertions may be exaggerations?

Related to all this "greenness" is the debate regarding cap and trade and carbon taxation. Andrew Revkin of The New York Times, in an article he wrote a couple of weeks ago, raised the question: "But is the carbon-neutral movement just a gimmick?"

What Revkin is asking is whether or not we're merely avoiding the obvious and the inevitable. Greenhouse gases are rising around the world and will for some time to come. Voluntary, unregulated markets are springing up that buy and sell these supposed "offsets."

You can fly your private jet to Paris for some shopping or an environmental conference and then write a check to an organization that promises to offset the amount of greenhouse gases your plane travel created (the actual dollar offset for our Paris flight could vary from one organization to another), perhaps through tree planting in Africa, building solar panels in Arizona or possibly even constructing a bike path in Des Moines, Iowa.

I don't know which sunscreen is the best nor do I believe carbon offsets should be dismissed out-of-hand. Is not some green better than no green and is not an offset better than doing nothing? But then again....

If rising greenhouse gases threaten the existence of our planet why don't we just cut through the smoke and mirrors? Why not have a carbon tax? Fossil fuels would be taxed based on their carbon content, one standard and no exception. And, yes, what about our sunscreen? How do you know it isn't Earth friendly?

Structure and Function

2007-04-29T08:21:00.001-06:00

The oil fields are named Ishpingo-Tiputino-Tambococha. I became interested in learning more about them after reading an article in Responsible Nanotechnology about "green" nanotechnology. One quote in particular caught my attention: "When most structure and function can be built out of carbon and hydrogen by molecular manufacturing, there will be far less use for minerals, and mining operations mostly can be shut down." Really?

We undoubtedly will hear much more about nanotechnology in the near future, which is essentially the ability to manipulate and manufacture all sorts of things between 1 and 100 nanometers. A nanometer is one billionth of a meter. A human hair is approximately 100,000 nanometers wide.

The oil fields known as Ishpingo-Tiputino-Tambococha are in Ecuador, a country where I lived for a year some 30 years ago. These particular fields are located in the center of Yasuni National Park, which covers some 1.7 million acres. The petroleum experts say approximately one-quarter of the country's known oil reserves are in this particular location.

Ecuador was poor when I lived there thirty years ago. It still is. Some 40% of the federal budget comes from oil revenue. The country as well has about 15 billion dollars of external debt, meaning it owes the international lenders a lot of money. It appears only logical that the oil fields at ITT need to be exploited ... yet.

Yasuni National Park may be the most biodiverse forest on Earth according to some biologists. (See Yasuni Rainforest Campaign .) ITT is also home to many indigenous people, who are dependent on a healthy rainforest for their survival. Finally, according to the University of Maryland's Sustainable Development and Conservation Biology program, Yasuni National Park could sequester possibly a half-billion tons of CO2--which could be increasingly important to all of us.

There is, however, another twist to this story. The president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, has stated that he will seriously consider not developing this oil field, even though his country is poor and most certainly can use the oil income.

Correa will postpone oil development for at least another year if the international community makes a commitment to compensate Ecuador for approximately half of the projected lost revenue, estimated to be more than $300 million per year. The Ecuadorian president has acknowledged the environmental significance of Yasuni, but is also asking the wealthy countries to now acknowledge--in concrete terms--what Ecuador will have to give up. What if anything will the international community (including China) propose? (According to Information Clearing House the U.S. has alone spent to date more than $400 billion for the Iraq war.)

It's quite possible that nanotechnology will ultimately create a seismic shift on our planet. We may develop commercial carbon sequestration sooner than we think. For that matter, hydrogen fuel could be a reality in less than 30 or 40 years....

But what are we all willing to do right now regarding a place called Ishpingo-Tiputino-Tambococha?

Oprah Said So

2007-04-22T15:11:00.000-06:00

Earth Day is today, one week after the National Day of Climate Action. I just noticed this morning in the shower, for the first time, that the shower curtain was made in China ... but why not? Why should America be making shower curtains? We could be producing new jobs in alternative energy and assorted green businesses, manufacturing wind turbines, making new hardware and creating more sophisticated climate change software. We could but will we? How many new, well paying jobs can we actually create? Can the environmental sector become big and noticeable, where even the most benighted politician has to pay attention if he or she wants to survive politically?

We're nibbling faster around the edges and some are now saying that Earth Day has served its purpose. More and more people are using CFL lighting, buying organic and so forth and so forth. According to the Pew Research Center some 83% of Americans think environmental laws and regulations should be stricter. That's the good news.

But there is some not so good news. According to Pew when you ask Americans if they're willing to pay higher prices to protect the environment the percentage falls to 60%. I know, is it half full or half empty.

This past Friday Oprah Winfrey devoted her program to going "green." She had the president of Shaklee on her program, a company she speaks highly of. I use Shaklee products and they are very good. Shaklee was the first company in the world to be certified climate neutral. Yes, Oprah has incredible clout. What if she devoted one day a month to climate change? Yeah, we are nibbling faster around the edges.

I am, however, increasingly uneasy as to why the honeybees are vanishing, maybe the real canary in the mine. What if it has something to do with cell phone towers? Are we ready to shut them off? It's going to be damn inconvenient if we do. But I may have watched too many disaster films, where one insect begins to act strangely. It's called foreshadowing.

Those glaciers are melting awfully fast and China is becoming a genuine environmental nightmare. Suburbia looks more and more like it ought to be behind glass at the Smithsonian. Talk about inconvenience. We're not going to "grow" our way out of this. That, it seems to me, is cartoon capitalism at its worst.

Jim Hanson, along with other climatologists, believes we have possibly 10 years to make drastic changes in energy use and overall lifestyle. Nibbling around the edges won't be good enough. Not even big chunks will likely be enough. It's only a vague unease at the moment.

A Teachable Moment

2007-04-18T07:25:00.000-06:00

I was on the organizing committee for the Kansas City rally. Was I part of a social movement that will sweep across America ... and possibly the world? This thought entered my mind early Sunday morning before the sun had come up, the day after the largest global warming (or climate change) rally in America. But then the sun did come up.

Some 12 weeks before, Bill McKibben, an environmental writer living in Vermont, came up with the idea of a rally a week before Earth Day, but with a specific goal: Get the U.S. Congress to pass legislation to cut carbon emissions 80% by 2050. By April 14 more than 1,400 planned events were established in all 50 states, from Paia, Hawaii to Cold Spring, New York. Individuals and small groups within their particular communities organized these diverse events across the country. Bill McKibben created the national phrase Step it Up 07. How well will we ultimately "step it up"?

In Kansas City the weather had been cold and rainy the week prior to our event. Late Friday afternoon we had to make a decision to move our rally inside, because of possible snow some weather reports offered. "Unusual" for this time of year some said. Hm-m. More unusual weather in other parts of the country we learned.

I stood in a park late Friday afternoon, where our rally was supposed to have taken place if we had had "normal" April weather. I was holding an umbrella and about to be interviewed by FOX news. The cameraman clipped on the mike and the reporter asked me if I was ready.

The reporter's first question was whether or not I saw any "irony" in all this; the global warming rally was going to be moved indoors because of possible snow. I laughed. What the viewers didn't know was that before the camera started running the reporter and I had talked about how climate change might bring unusual or even extreme weather patterns, even though data showed steadily rising temperatures. The reporter, however, had deliberately given me a teachable moment.

The Kansas City rally was a success. Had it been held outside on a warm spring day we probably would have gotten more than a thousand people in attendance. However, what we did get were some 500 enthusiastic individuals along with various speakers and representatives for some of our congressional politicians. A good day in my opinion.

The following day the sun came out for the first time in at least a week. It was warm and bright, blue sky overhead. Spring had arrived. By 9:30 I heard the quintessential American sound. The neighbor to my right was mowing her lawn with the all-purpose polluting gasoline mower, along with two neighbors across the street. No, I didn't go outside and scream at them that the world was ending.

I live in the middle of Kansas City and our lawns are small enough to be cut with hand mowers or in some cases with a good pair of scissors ... no I'm exaggerating about the scissors. But you get the point.

At 10 o'clock the e-mails started arriving from our steering committee Goggle group. Do you think that reporter was being too sarcastic mentioning that snow had driven our "warming" rally inside ... we need to write to him and educate him ... "only" 500 people showed up ... don't they know how important this issue is ... what happened to the media ... etc, etc. I turned the computer off.

That afternoon I played tennis; it was a great day for doubles. We didn't discuss global warming (or climate change) once. The National Day of Climate Action was a nationwide success. Now, teachable moments are most certainly almost everywhere.

I think I'm going to spend more time chatting with my neighbors, and perhaps a little less--for the time being--with my "eco" colleagues. In fact, some of my neighbors may have a few teachable moments to offer my environmental friends. I suppose we could all talk together from time to time. Don't forget Earth Day this Saturday.

One More Step

2007-04-07T10:48:00.000-06:00

The National Day of Climate Action is next Saturday, April 14. The specific goal is to get the U.S. Congress to cut carbon emissions 80% by 2050.

At this point there are more than 1,200 planned events in all 50 states. This is a remarkable achievement in less than 3 months. Go to stepitup07.org and find a rally closest to where you live. Time to toss the deniers in the ashcan of history and get the U.S. Congress to demonstrate they can do more than pose for photo-ops or utter the usual banality.

Global warming is here, but we still have time to change direction and reduce its impact.

Market Driven Conservation (1)

2007-03-19T14:52:00.000-06:00

Have you noticed the number of times that global warming articles have appeared in the news lately? Have you noticed how many transnational corporations are now acknowledging that global warming is no longer a fringe idea but a serious worldwide concern that must be addressed?

For that matter, have you noticed how many small businesses are now calling themselves "green" or "environmentally friendly"? Isn't this good? After all, many of these small companies start the trends, create the new ideas and then the large corporations follow. Haven't we finally turned the proverbial corner?

Market-driven conservation is the latest buzzword. Simply put, it refers to profit making companies that want to incorporate both economic justice and environmental restoration as a central part of their business plan.

The types of businesses are varied. They could include companies that manufacture paper from wild grass, offer organic ant bait, sell organic pizza or make soybean candles. Many of these small businesses contribute part of their earnings to environmental organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council or sponsor fundraising events for a local woman's shelter to an Ethiopian orphanage or perhaps contribute to the construction of a school kitchen in Guatemala.

Sambazon, founded by an American several years ago, is a company often used as an example of market-driven conservation. Its products are found in many health food stores around the world. The company "discovered" a fruit called acai (ah-sigh-EE), found in the Amazon region of Brazil. The fruit is apparently highly nutritious and contains large amounts of antioxidants.

Regarding the social justice and environmental priority of the company, Sambazon states that it buys the acai from local growers and pays its workers at the local processing plant wages considerably high than prevailing rates. As well, the company wants to make the small farmers organic certified.

The intention is not to harm the local flora and fauna but preserve it, nor exploit the indigenous people or cut down the tropical forests in order to create soybean plantations or cattle ranches, which unfortunately is a reality in Brazil at the present time--in spite of what the government oftentimes claims.

These market-driven conservation companies are a small but growing segment of the overall organic market. Terms like "fair trade" and "beyond organic" are now heard more frequently. It remains to be seen what the eventual economic, social and environmental impact will be on the larger markets, especially in North America, Europe and Asia. But have we actually turned the proverbial corner?....

A Good Day to Die

2007-03-05T19:05:00.000-06:00

Clearly we humans--at least at the present--cannot conceive of ourselves as not existing. Is this belief an evolutionary adaptation or merely a byproduct of something else? After all, blood didn't have to be the color red. An article worth reading was in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine, written by Robin Marantz Henig and entitled "Darwin's God."

The fictional character Maximus in the movie Gladiator advised his troops that it was "a good day to die," as the final battle with the unruly barbarians was about to begin. Maximus was reassuring his soldiers that the Elysian Fields awaited the warrior that fought bravely. Immortality, never-ending existence will be ours. Of course it's reassuring; it's the ace in the hole. As Proximo the slave catcher says to Maximus, "Ultimately we are all dead men..." Yeah, but maybe not really dead.

Some environmentalists have been told not to paint too gloomy a picture of global warming because people will merely throw up their hands in resignation or "make merry" until the end. Ultimately the fallback position of the majority of Homo sapiens is that some ethereal paradise awaits all of us ... well, maybe not all of us. Henig states in his article that logic and rationality have nothing to do with these beliefs.

But what if "most" of us did not believe in the supernatural at all? Death becomes quite literally the end--no consciousness whatsoever, of any kind, anywhere. Would nature still be just another commodity, to be shopped around for the best price? But perhaps nothing would change.

Would stewardship of the land be taken seriously if that were to become our lasting legacy? If there were no chance to reach the gurgling brook in the ether, would we treat our surroundings (including other humans) any better than we do now? Would we still have to be careful not to upset our neighbors when discussing responsibility and the "nature" thing? But maybe we're just wired not to really give a damn under any circumstance. Ultimately we're all dead. But what if we really are....

I'm Merely Confused

2007-02-24T12:24:00.000-06:00

Even Charles Darwin was initially skeptical when he first read about the views of James Hutton in the 1830's: The Earth might be millions of years old--possibly older! (We know today that the Earth is more than 4.5 billion years old.) It's hard to believe that less than 200 years ago, even among the educated, the Earth was unquestionably thought to be only some 6,000 years old, as was stated in the Book of Genesis, a collection of stories from the Iron Age.

Although far less well known than figures like Galileo, Newton and Darwin himself, the Scotsman James Hutton in discovering Earth's "antiquity" in the late 18th century, then forgotten about for some 20 years before being rediscovered, deserves to be placed alongside the greatest scientists in human history.

How far have we traveled in the past 200 years? Well, according to a Michigan State University professor ( Jon D. Miller), who conducted a study on science literacy in the United States, about 20 percent of Americans--at least 40 million--think the sun travels around the Earth. Does anyone recall what Galileo almost got burned at the stake for in the 17th century? But if it is of any consolation to American "patriots," Europe and Japan are only marginally better informed according to the report.

But is there a point to any of this? Well if one believes, for example, that global warming might not be an environmental "conspiracy," but a potentially very serious problem for all of us, then there may be an important point to be made.

A joint poll last year conducted by ABC News, Time and two universities learned that less than 40% of Americans think global warming is a serious problem and only 3 out of 10 feel humans have caused it. Americans also are under the impression that there is considerable disagreement among scientists as to whether or not the Earth is heating up.

While the success of industry front groups has something to do with the confusion of many Americans, coupled with the media's misunderstanding of so-called "balanced" news, the profound lack of basic scientific literacy among the majority of people is by far the essential problem, it seems to me. It remains to be seen what we are willing to do to change this. Of course, we first have to realize there is a problem. The late Carl Sagan once said, "Ignorance feeds on ignorance."

Renewables and Gao Trees

2007-02-17T14:07:00.000-06:00

What sorts of things should we notice? What slight changes ought we to pay attention to? Is there anything we can learn from a farmer in Africa who lives in one of the poorest countries in the world?

The official name is Faidherbia albida. In English it's sometime called the Ana tree. In Setswana, a language spoken in Southern Africa, it's called Mokosho. Most folks in Niger just refer to it as a "gao" tree.

It is an especially good tree in a country like Niger located in the Sahel, where rainfall is limited and the desert always threatens to overrun everything. Niger is not a country most people would choose to live. The Gao tree is a perennial, which makes it a good tree to halt the advancing desert. It's also a nitrogen-fixing tree, which helps fertilize the soil. Its pale gray-green leaves fall off during the rainy season and become organic fertilizer. Most important in this part of the world the Gao tree is not competing with crops for water.

Some 20 years ago a few farmers realized that the cutting down of trees before planting their crops, such as sorghum and peanuts, was only reducing the land's fertility and speeding up desertification. Slowly they began planting their crops around the trees as well as planting new trees. The Gao tree is merely one type albeit highly suitable to the region.

Twenty or so years later millions of acres have been reclaimed in Niger. This has also led to overall improvements in conservation and livestock practices, as well as the government finally recognizing that trees on farmer's property ought to be the property of those farmers. At one time and apparently going back to colonial times, trees were the property of the state and farmers therefore had little incentive to take care of them.

Adequate rainfall is always precarious in the Sahel, but Niger is now better prepared to deal with changes in weather than it once was. Perhaps the point of all this is that slight modifications in human behavior can frequently have a significant impact in improving the surrounding environment as well as increasing productivity. This occurred in Niger without massive foreign assistance or government help.

In the developed world the "hot" word is renewable. What combination of solar, wind power, geothermal will help us keep the global average temperature from rising more than one degree Celsius? Can the U.S. reduce CO2 emissions 60 to 80 percent by 2050? Can we do all this without a carbon tax? Will we have to include nuclear energy in the mix? Is it worth the large taxpayer subsidy ... and on and on and on?

But if a tree grows in Niger, planted by one observant farmer, that ultimately assists in restoring biodiversity, do we all need to notice those smaller things as well--and perhaps first? How do we learn to observe better?

Take a Step

2007-02-14T19:31:00.000-06:00

April 14th is to be the National Day of Climate Action. Its overriding goal is to get the United States Congress to "pledge an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050." At the present time there are some 640 events planned in 47 states. The original idea for all of this started with a group called Step it Up from Vermont. The web site is http://stepitup07.org/

Quite clearly the intent is to create a "buzz" that becomes ongoing and that cannot be ignored. Hundreds of rallies will occur throughout the country, encompassing various events and activities. There is no reason why this could not be recreated in cities throughout the world.

Yes here's a chance to take a step. Visit the web site. Start something in your community. Spread the word. Tell us what you'll do.

It's Your Problem

2007-02-08T16:07:00.000-06:00

A recent article in AlterNet entitled "Who's Funding Global Warming?" offers a perspective of some of the large banks and investment firms that are providing capital to build power plants. Texas, one of the more politically benighted states, is supporting the construction of 11 new coal-fired power plants. TXU, a Dallas utility company, is seeking the permits and the financing to begin construction.

An assortment of environmental groups believe these new Texas plants could generate more CO2 emissions than many small countries, such as Sweden. Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup are the three financial institutions that have, for the moment, agreed to acquire the necessary financing, some $11 billion. It is as yet not a done deal.

At the same time, an ever-increasing number of banks and investment firms are backing away from projects that have a negative environmental impact like the proposed coal-fired plants in Texas. It is clear that pressure needs to be continually applied to those institutions that provide funding for these types of projects. "Following the money" may make more sense in many cases than dealing with weak-kneed, ignorant politicians and shortsighted corporations. Applying pressure worldwide needs to be ramped up, individually and collectively on those that provide the financial wherewithal.

But of course the ultimate problem still exists: Where will alternative energy supplies come from? What are we willing to do to get them? What are we willing to pay for them? What exactly does "low-carbon" growth mean?

Luis da Silva, the President of Brazil, recently stated in no uncertain terms that the developed countries need to "stop preaching" to developing countries like Brazil. His country has no intention of destroying the Amazon da Silva indignantly proclaims. He pointed out that drafting climate agreements are easy and what the developed world likes to do, but at the same time has been reluctant to address global warming in a real sense.

President Bush's recent budget submission cuts 2007 spending for efficiency and renewables by 16%.

Some 263,000 people have been displaced in Jakarta, Indonesia because of flooding.

China says it is the developed world's responsibility. They are the principal polluters; they have the primary duty to reduce greenhouse gases.

Briana Cayo Cotter of Rainforest Action Network says, "There is a growing movement around the world to stop global warming and the U.S. has been at the back of the gang and has been holding things up."

But whose problem is it?

I Didn't Know

2007-01-31T15:18:00.000-06:00

Thirteen percent of Americans in a recent survey have never heard of global warming. Is that so terrible? But perhaps the bar has been set so low that many of us are grateful for any sign of life. After all, this is the country where a poll reported not long ago that approximately two-thirds of Americans believe the devil--literally--is wandering the streets of America ... or that more than 40% of the adult population doesn't believe in the theory of evolution. But I think there is now reason to be cautiously optimistic, in the U.S. and elsewhere regarding global warming, energy use and most importantly, raising awareness.

A great many people are now uttering the words "global warming" and "energy." Even the colossal incompetent in the White House has mumbled something about the subject.

Environmental Defense has discussed three areas in particular where energy efficiency can be a focal point for action. These three areas are individual action, transportation and buildings. Yes leadership is still required but it can come from many levels, both public and private, local and national.

Improved building design, the major source of global warming pollution, can cut energy use by some 40%. Individual homeowners as well can make a significant impact on global warming along with saving money by doing such things as improving insulation and using energy efficient appliances.

Transportation represents about one-third of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. According to Environmental Defense, improving vehicle efficiency by some 60% by the year 2020 would reduce our fuel demand by 2.3 million barrels per day. This is what we now import from the Persian Gulf.

The Institute for Local Self-Government says, in reference to the roughly 350 cities participating in the Climate Protection Planning Process, that they will fail to meet their greenhouse gas emission goals if they don't get improved fuel efficiency standards for vehicles or get people to drive less.

Before the stampede sets in to build costly nuclear plants, more primitive coal-fired facilities or drill for oil in every preserve in America, we need to forcefully address real energy efficiency. It's not obscure nor is it fanciful. Do we want to be a California that uses half as much energy per person as Texas because they understand energy efficiency much better than the "lonestar" state? Do we want to see 19 more coal-fired plants built as Texas has proposed or do we want to follow a state like California that has a program to reduce CO2 emissions 20% within the next 13 years?

Certainly, if we want China and India to go beyond their global warming "entitlement" rhetoric, the U.S. needs to demonstrate that it has heard of greenhouse gases and is actually doing something to address global warming--beginning yesterday.

Carbon Constrained World

2007-01-23T14:40:00.000-06:00

The leaks to the press indicate that the February summary will state that human activity is strongly responsible: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its report to be issued on the 2nd of February will likely find that we humans are more than marginally contributing to global warming because of the burning of fossil fuels. Of course we shall have to wait a couple of weeks to learn how "unequivocal" the final account is. Governments around the world will probably want the report to reflect their particular views.

Ten large, influential Fortune 500 corporations, along with several well-known environmental organizations, have formed the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (US-CAP). They are calling on the U.S. Congress to pass legislation that will cut global warming pollution, and not attempt to postpone it until after the 2008 presidential election. John Rogers, the president and CEO of Duke Energy, and one of the ten companies that are part of US-CAP, announced at a public meeting on Monday that we have to face reality. He said that we're going to be living in a "carbon constrained world." Could we actually be lurching forward?

Even the "dim bulb" that occupies the White House at the present is supposedly going to call for "better" fuel economy in his state-of-the-union message on Tuesday night. Is the rock beginning to move up the hill?

But is it all much too little after so much time of inaction and resistance? Probably so, but even more reason to push for more aggressive achievements while the door remains open. Get busy and get active wherever you are in the world. Don't let the door close again.

Gasping For Air

2007-01-12T12:44:00.000-06:00

It's easy to believe that the Iraq conflict is "sucking" oxygen from almost everything in the United States at the moment, as well as slowly spreading across the planet, engulfing more and more countries directly or indirectly. Once again I found myself revisiting The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement website. The movement's motto is "May we live long and die out." It is a site everyone should visit at least once.

Scientists have recently reported that they have strong evidence, because of a South African skull apparently some 36,000 years old, that a clear resemblance exists between this skull and the skulls of other humans that were living in Europe, Asia and Australia at the same time. In other words we all looked pretty much the same back then. The original Homo sapiens--our ancestors--were moving out of Africa quite possibly some 65,000 years ago. New technology made it possible to determine the date of this skull with a margin of error of only three thousand years. So here we are in 2007 with ever improving technology and ever increasing knowledge.

I recall reading some time ago that on average a species goes extinct after approximately 1.4 million years. We humans have been around maybe 200,000 years, give or take. Is it possible we'll get anywhere near the average? May we live long and wisely?

Drink Your Hemlock

2007-01-02T15:33:00.000-06:00

Children of Men, a movie set in the not to distant future, confronts a serious situation. For whatever reason, women are no longer able to get pregnant, raising an obvious dilemma. No one knows exactly what the reason or reasons might be, but speculation covers such possibilities as pollution, assorted environmental toxins and so forth ... and so forth. Does this fictional movie predicament seem ever so slightly plausible in the actual world we humans inhabit today?

Organic View states that some 40 cosmetic companies use potentially harmful "nanoparticles." These are tiny synthetic particles thousands of times smaller than the width of a human hair. Cosmetic companies like this technology because these almost invisible elements are able to carry various vitamins and sunscreen deep into the skin. Of course, nanoparticles can also enter directly into the bloodstream.

The industry naturally states it would not introduce any technology that has the potential of harming humans, presumably because it would be bad for business among other things. This is also the general response that nutritional, food, beverage, seed and pesticide companies offer. They too use nanotechnology.

At the present time the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not have regulations regarding nanotechnology. Cosmetic companies are not required to notify the FDA that they're using nanoparticles. There are as well no pre-approval requirements for what is called "cosmetic formulations."

In the past 60 or so years manufacturers in the United States have introduced an "estimated" 100,000 synthetic compounds. Only about 10% of the synthetic chemicals we currently use have been tested on animals.

We know the umbilical cord sends nourishment to the fetus. It can also deliver synthetic chemicals. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention says the average American now has "116 synthetic chemicals" in his or her body, including dioxin and organochlorine pesticides--not something we probably need. Ah, but progress has its price. And of course an "unfettered" market knows what's best....

Strolling With Trees

2006-12-22T14:15:00.000-06:00

I was reminded of Nathaniel Philbrick's book Mayflower recently, when I read an article about changes the U.S. Forest Service had made concerning national forests and grasslands.

When the Puritans arrived in November of 1620 on a cold, bleak day, in what is today the area of Cape Cod, they observed there were far more trees than what they'd ever seen in Holland or the coast of England. And they hadn't yet discovered the "real" forests that once covered much of North America.

The Forest Service now says that the public will no longer be able to appeal "long-term plans" but will be able to be involved and participate in the planning process from its beginning. It's difficult to say exactly what this means, but given George Bush's environmental record, a healthy skepticism is not unwarranted. It would be wise to let the new Democratic controlled Congress in January know we're not supporting tree farms for the timber industry nor suburban housing on the nation's grasslands.

There is some good news, apparently, regarding forests worldwide. According to a study done within the National Academy of Science, we've had a significant "reforestation" in the past 15 years in almost half of the countries with the most forests.

The study also seems to confirm the connection between general forest improvement and a nation's standard of living, agricultural practices, education and competent government.

At the same time, tropical forests are being destroyed in various developing countries because of greed, corruption, poverty, ignorance and the lack of competent government. We in the developed world have a clear responsibility as consumers--if nothing else. We cannot remain passive bystanders and just look for what is called "cheap." Nothing ultimately is.

While I enjoy hiking and climbing, there are some practical reasons why we want healthy forests everywhere on this planet. Beyond the obvious fact that trees absorb carbon dioxide, forests also encourage biodiversity and slow erosion, essential to our well being as humans. Healthy forests also provide clear economic benefits, whether it's lumber for building homes or paper we use for any number of things.

Find some woods, take a walk and leave the cell phone at home. Be grateful you can stroll with a tree.

Capping or Taxing

2006-12-15T09:14:00.000-06:00

Capping and taxing our way to carbon dioxide reductions, the main greenhouse gas, are words now heard more often, even on the silliest cable news station. But that's probably a good thing because we're actually talking about global warming and that, it seems to me, is a very--very--good thing.

This subject has to go way beyond corporate board rooms, academic institutions and most politicians. A "moderately concerned" public here in the U.S. and presumably in the rest of the world need to understand what they can do individually and on a community level, which in the short to intermediate term may be far more important for greenhouse gas reduction than the "big" concepts.

Ever so briefly, capping refers to a cap-and-trade structure, whereby limits are place on emissions. Companies that are able to go below their emission goals can sell "permits" to those companies that could not. Taxing is a straightforward levy that would set a price (a tax) on each ton of carbon dioxide that is discharged into the air. Each side has its advocates and each method has its shortcomings, political as well as technological.

But returning to the individual and the community, it's worth looking at what an increasing number of cities are doing in the United States. Because of the astounding negligence at the national level these past several years, cities have taken the lead in addressing climate change.

Some 350 cities throughout the U.S., encompassing more than 40 million people, have adopted a "climate protection planning process." The goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by studying and developing comprehensive plans for such things as energy use, transportation, waste management and overall environmental direction. Specific targets are established.

A central component of these plans is setting up community outreach programs. What can individuals and neighborhoods do? It could be a recycling program or merely replacing incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent lights. It could be a neighborhood association newsletter or quartely community meetings. But above all it educates people and shows them ways to participate and make a difference.

This is related to efficient energy use. McKinsey Global Institute, a research organization, believes that within some 14 years the annual growth rate of energy demand worldwide could go from approximately 2.2% to about 0.6%. This is not by discovering some new breakthroughs but by using existing technology, whether it's an energy-efficient appliance, insulating one's home or improved commercial building design.

A good place to begin is at the local level. In Kansas City, where I live, our curbside recycling program--in its first year--saved an estimated 156 thousand barrels of oil and possibly enough electricity to run almost 8 thousand homes for a year.

Of course we need global standards. Clearly countries like China and India cannot get some infantile "free" pass. And most definitely the voters in the United States are going to have to take some real responsibility for their actions, beginning by electing competent political representatives.

When General Motors thinks it still makes sense to advertise the Hummer to rich halfwits on Sunday football games, we still have a considerable ways to go. But it does however start with one light bulb at a time. Get busy in your community. Locate the people that can conceive of something different.

Fork in Road

2006-12-06T12:46:00.000-06:00

How many times can one individual, one city or one nation reach a fork in the road and have to make a choice about which way to go? I haven't the faintest idea. But those "forks" appear for almost all of us sometime in our existence. Times are starting to appear interesting in the U.S. at the moment, once again. I'm talking about climate change and global warming. What decisions will we end up making? They will likely have an impact on the rest of the world.

We've had a series of reports, commissions and recommendations over the past several months, from various countries and international agencies, outlining what could happen if we don't address global warming. Even some of the global warming skeptics have become less shrill.

Intimately connected with the complexity of global warming issues is the so-called "peak oil" debate. The consensus, as far as I can tell, is that we agree we're going to run out of oil in the not-to-distant future. The argument centers on just when this "future" might occur. The optimists talk about some 100 years from now and the pessimists speak about the next 10 to 20 years. But clearly oil has made modern civilization possible. With very little research it is possible to discover just how many everyday items are derived from petroleum.

An interesting aspect of this "black gold" is the E.R.O.I. or the energy-return-on-investment. It looks like it's going to get more and more expensive to extract it. We're going to have to spend more energy to get more energy, because we likely have gotten most of the accessible oil and gas fields, and now it will become much more difficult and more expensive to extract. More money spent on energy probably means less money for things like education and other areas we undoubtedly consider essential to our welfare.

Cutler Cleveland, an energy scientist at Boston University, estimates that over the past thirty years investment return on oil and natural gas fell from "25 to 1 to about 15 to 1." If we try to extract oil from tar sands, for example, the return could be only 4 to 1 because of the conversion expenses.

Last but certainly not least is coal. The United States has a lot of it and it's relatively cheap. But until we learn how to bury its high carbon dioxide emissions, coal is not going to be our salvation. We can observe China right now and see the extreme pollution caused by the country's frantic construction of coal-fired power plants.

So what's happening right now? The moderately good news is that the Democratic Party controls Congress. But it most definitely remains to be seen what the Democrats will do. At the very least, however, they should be able to stop or slow down the Bush thug's most egregious environmental behavior. And there is a presidential election in 2008.

California with the world's sixth-largest economy has established caps on global warming pollution, requiring a 25% cut in greenhouse gases by 2020. This will have an impact throughout the U.S. and likely with other countries that want to do business with California.

The Bush--yes George Bush--administration is going to establish, after many years of procrastination, energy efficiency standards for numerous commercial and residential appliances, which will likely save significant amounts of energy.

Some 300 cities in the United States have adopted a Climate Protection Planning Process, covering approximately 40 million people. These cities have agreed to develop a specific procedure for assessing energy and transportation needs and overall environmental direction.

More and more business leaders are examining how climate change will affect financial markets and economic development. For example, this Thursday the University of Chicago Business School is hosting a conference on Midwest development. The Midwest, in addition to agriculture, has high concentrations of automotive companies, insurance and power generation. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 resulted in some $45 billion of insured losses. Changing weather conditions and possibly shorter growing seasons in the central part of the U.S. could have a significant impact on agriculture production--which certainly could affect the availability of food worldwide.

We have arrived it seems to me at another fork in the road. We have another chance to make a choice. Stupidity and lazy indifference may again prevail or we may just figure it out this time. Getting organized and getting informed are good first steps. How many chances do we get?

Searching For Wisdom

2006-11-20T12:55:00.000-06:00

What happened in the midterm elections in the United States a couple of weeks ago? Will it be good for the environment? Do we know? Of course we don't really know.

The American electorate managed to wake up from its torpor (a significant problem) long enough to give control of Congress to the Democratic Party. But the party that lost control (Republican) was and is one of the most incompetent and possibly corrupt political parties in American history; a party that has become little more than an open sewer and finds rational thinking blasphemy. We can, however, be grateful for small favors, for a short while. Now, if the man-child playing President of the United States would vanish....

Kofi Annan, Secretary of the United Nations, remarked at the climate conference in Nairobi that there was "a frightening lack of leadership" in the world community.

REFOCUS, an international renewable energy magazine, said the U.S. is now the "most attractive country for renewable energy investment."

The chairman of the Global Carbon Project reported recently that CO2 emissions are "spiraling out of control." We may not be able to avoid some of the "bad" scenarios.

My city has established a "climate protection planning process," which includes benchmarks as well as public outreach and education.

So of course we don't really know--yet. Don't stop telling me that we have a new widget to help "bury" CO2, but even better, tell me there are ten more people that know what global warming is, what causes it and--best of all--know how to motivate and influence government action at the local level, the national level, and the international level. Keep searching for wisdom.

One Percent Solution

2006-11-04T09:29:00.000-06:00

If the world takes action now on global greenhouse gas emissions it will cost 1% of Gross Domestic Product. This in the conclusion of the recently released Stern Report requested by the British government. The release of the report was met by both interest and skepticism along with the usual "calls" for action among those that pay attention to such matters. For the world at large it went unnoticed.

Possibly the most important sentence in the entire 600-page report came at the beginning of chapter 21: "Public awareness and support is crucial for encouraging and sustaining cooperation." Far more critical than dedicated environmentalists, intelligent politicians and enlightened business people is a citizenry that has a reasonable understanding of the problem coupled with a willingness to make changes both individually and collectively. And therefore...?

Based on any number of facts the world is at the moment largely clueless. Global subsidies for energy research are some $10 billion annually, while subsidies for fossil fuel extraction runs about $250 billion annually. Only Japan among the world's economic powers has increased funding for energy research in recent decades.

The United States, which is still the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases, is close to being "criminally" negligent. The American government spends around $3 billion per year on all
energy development. In contrast, the U.S. spends some $75 billion on military research.

Relying on private enterprise is largely a feverish hallucination. It is not that business is not crucial in dealing with global warming and developing various technologies, but the private market is simply not big enough nor can it be relied upon for a long period of time. Its motivation is profit, usually short-term. Private investors won't and most cannot afford to go much beyond five or six years before the big return on their investment is demanded.

Dealing with greenhouse gases, finding alternative energy sources, and developing technologies such as drought resistant crops will be long-term, expensive, and require coordinated global action. The United Nations reported just recently that greenhouse gases reached a "record high" in 2005. The Stern Report stated that global costs could go up to 20% of GDP over the next ten to twenty years if the world does not act now. Possibly more than 200 million people, again according to the Stern Report, could end up becoming refugees because of droughts or floods, let alone failed states and civil wars. So therefore...?

Many years ago I first heard the expression "luck is the residue of hard work." We are all going to need some luck and perhaps a lot of hard work. The developed world, especially the United States, has to change drastically--and yeah, that's political, on a national scale, and not in some distant future. So dear environmentalists (the few), politicians (the few) and business people (the few) get busy and fast. Most people are clueless. That's the really big problem.

A lot of the "developing" world believes it's entitled--read China and India for the moment--but they're not. The good news is that even the kleptocracy in say China now has an inkling that the "good" life will never arrive if you only create an open sewer.

The Stern Report like all the rest will end up gathering dust on some shelf unless the few realize the fight's going to take place on the street, literally and figuratively. How badly do we want to take care of the only real home we will ever have?

All Kinds of Energy

2006-10-22T16:04:00.000-06:00

The Worldwatch Institute (www.worldwatch.org) has released a report entitled "The Renewable Path to Energy Security." It's a comprehensive overview, covering everything from biofuels to geothermal to marine energy. It is a report that every non-expert should at least glance through.

What continues to be frustrating is that a great deal of research in renewable energy sources has been going on for some time in both the public and private sector, yet policy makers worldwide have been, to various degrees, almost lackadaisical in their responses to both the potential problems of relying on fossil fuels, as well as the opportunities that renewables present.

In the United States, certainly in the last six years, the government has been almost criminally negligent--to put it kindly. While we Americans are supposedly in some global battle against the forces of "darkness," the U.S. imports about 13 million barrels of oil each day from some not so stable countries. This represents more than 60% of our total daily production. It's also costing us approximately $300 billion annually.

This is not to say the world has been standing still. The second-largest industry in the world--the insurance industry--has decided that stupidity may be too costly. The industry has slowly changed how it evaluates "risk-assessment." It more and more, for example, assesses how future climate change models may look, and less on current weather patterns. As well, the insurance industry is doing such things as cutting premiums for "green" buildings and giving discounts to people driving hybrid cars. As the insurance industry modifies its priorities other sectors will likely have to follow.

Right now global investments in renewable energy is some $38 billion. It is still a proverbial drop-in-the-bucket but continues to grow. Worldwide, wind and solar power are the fastest growing energy sources.

Jobs in the fossil fuel sector are expected to show little growth, in part because of automation, while significant employment growth is expected in the area of renewable energy over the next 20 years.

But we still have the "yeah, but" reaction more often than not and deservedly so. Until we have a serious nation-state response--meaning a political will--which ultimately means a real funding commitment, leadership, and education, we're indulging in a grand delusion. A survey taken not long ago in the United States indicated that nearly 75% of those polled believed global warming was a serious problem. Yet, this same percentage was equally at a loss as to what causes global warming. Perhaps Europe and Japan are not quite so uncertain but....

Equally important, until we have a coordinated international strategy, which must include China and India, we will remain locked in a narrow "free" market fantasy. So once again it comes down to the familiar question. What are we willing to do?

Painted Technology

2006-10-15T11:21:00.000-06:00

It came to mind after reading an article by Michael Pollan in The New York Times.

A couple of weeks ago I hiked through the Painted Hills (part of the National Park Service) in eastern Oregon. It's a remarkable sight; it looks like a vast watercolor landscape. The hills are of various hues, colors sometime blending together and sometimes separate and distinct.

The reasons for this phenomenon are complex. The Painted Hills are made up of layers of hard claystones that were formed some 33 million years ago. Along with variations in moisture and light reflection, mineral elements such as Magnesium, Iron, Potassium, Silicon, Phosphorous and other elements are mixed together. It is as inspiring as anything any human artist could conceive of.

Three days before I left for Oregon I wrote a column for the Kansas City Star on the upcoming November congressional election and the growing "rot" in America. It does connect, no matter how tenuous it first might appear.

Pollan's article entitled "The Vegetable-Industrial Complex" (10/15/06) discusses the outbreak of E. coli last month where some 200 Americans in some 26 states became sick from eating packaged spinach.

It is not the dreary news that food in America (meat and vegetables) has become industrialized and increasingly susceptible to more disasters and diseases, but Pollan's contention that "it's easier to find a technological fix than to address the root causes of such a problem. This has always been the genius of industrial capitalism--to take its failings and turn them into exciting new business opportunities."

If we Americans--out of indifference, avoidance or ignorance--choose to let our food be controlled by a handful of conglomerates, than we ought to be prepared for the consequences.

Animals crammed together on cement floors, standing all day in manure, and fed a steady diet of antibiotics are not "Little House On the Prairie." If we don't mind our vegetables ending up in large food processing factories with bacterial contamination more and more likely, then sit back and enjoy. Only about 70 million Americans each year get sick, or end up in the hospital--or die from the food they eat. But national regulations may not be the answer either.... Michael Pollan's article is worth reading.

A visit to the Painted Hills is worth doing but sadly most people won't be able to. This small section of the United States tells us a lot about the planet we live on and our place on it. It's deserving of preservation. Industrial agriculture also tells a lot about what kind of people we've become--something not worth preserving.

Reading Signs--or Not

2006-09-29T10:39:00.000-06:00

A species in transition ... hiring "forest people" for an ecotourism experiment ... the Ogallala aquifer running out of water: These are stories that appeared in the news in September. They are accounts from different parts of the world, seemingly unrelated, and yet are connected in important ways.

They are stories that have a lot to do with our ability to think critically as well as our willingness to conceive of something else. These are also tales about making choices--or not making them.

Paleontologists in Ethiopia believe they may have discovered a 3.3 million-year-old fossil of a child, estimated to be about 3 years old when she died. The child is a member of the Australopithecus afarensis species.

What is of possible major significance is that the scientists think that this child represents a "species in transition." The lower limbs are similar to early humans, but the upper limbs are more like a gorilla. Iron Age religious tales seem to pale in comparison when we consider the marvelous possibility of where we humans may have evolved. The scientists named the fossil Selam. The word means "peace" in the Amharic language.

Now try to imagine--not the beginning of the Neolithic Era--some 10,000 years ago, but the origins of our species Homo sapien, 100,000 years ago--200,000 years ago? And now go back one million years, two million years....

Attempts at ecotourism in third world countries have often been controversial. Who actually benefits? Do the flora and fauna thrive? Does the fact that rich first-world residents paying a lot of money to visit the "natural" world actually benefit indigenous people and the wildlife, and not just some corrupt elite running the country?

In one of the poorest parts of the world in central Africa, where life expectancy does not reach 40, three countries, the Central African Republic, Cameroon, and the Congo Republic are establishing one gigantic national preserve larger than the state of Rhode Island. The World Wildlife Fund is guiding its development. The local Bayaka Pygmies have been hired as trackers and guides. The goal is sustainable development that can benefit the people that live in the area over a long period of time, as well as protect rare and endangered species like the western lowland gorilla. Now go back one million years, two million years...

The natural Ogallala aquifer in Western Kansas is getting low on water. This is part of the United States called the "Wheat Belt," in a country that has been the breadbasket of the world. But energy is getting more and more expensive, and so is water.

Wheat was the crop that was planted, in the perfect location, when the homesteaders first arrived in the 1860s. It thrived in the hot central plains on little water. But over the past twenty or thirty years farmers have moved to corn and soybeans, used primarily for such things as animal feed and high fructose syrups. There was money to be made; unfortunately, corn and soybeans need twice the amount of water as wheat--but the Japanese and others developed a taste for American beef.

What choices will ultimately be made? At what point will the choices be limited? How well will we conceive of something else? Imagine a dry aquifer in Western Kansas. What was it like one million years ago, two million years....

Yedoma is Here

2006-09-17T10:25:00.000-06:00

Have you heard of yedoma? Outside of those folks that study ice cores and worry about melting permafrost (the fragile layer of frozen soil found in arctic and some subarctic regions) on this planet, most of us would likely have no reason to know anything about it. It is, however, a subject we may want to acquire some basic knowledge about.

In the course of coming up with some ideas for a piece I have to submit in a couple of weeks to the Kansas City Star, I read a couple of articles regarding a study published in the journal Nature, and a European-sponsored project regarding Antarctic "ice coring."

It seems that scientists have been able to get sample ice cores that go back some 800,000 years. Air bubbles trapped within these "cores" can tell scientists the amount of greenhouse gas concentrations over nearly a million-year period. The long and short of it is that carbon dioxide levels are a good deal higher than at any time in 800,000 years.

Possibly even more worrisome is that the increasing melting of the permafrost, especially in Siberia, an area covering some 10 million square kilometers, is not only releasing more CO2 but also Methane. Methane is an especially nasty "greenhouse gas." While methane disperses faster than carbon dioxide, some 10 years versus 100 years for CO2, it is about 23 times more powerful in trapping heat than CO2.

Methane is being released from the permafrost much, much faster than expected. Greenhouse gases and rising temperatures are connected and self-perpetuating: more greenhouse gases mean more melting, leading to increasing amounts of green house gases, and so forth.

Yedoma is a type of permafrost located primarily in parts of Siberia, and mostly lies under lakes. What is of interest here is that the melting permafrost releases methane, whereas under dry permafrost carbon dioxide is released.

In the United States, within two months, Americans will again have another opportunity to break out of their own carefully constructed insane asylum. We will have a chance to change the makeup of the U.S. Congress. Global warming is happening now, and we Americans have another possibility of demonstrating we're not a country of total ignoramuses.

Cows, Corn, and Melting Ice

2006-09-04T15:05:00.000-06:00

The U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization along with the U.S. Department of Agriculture claim that the world's grain harvest, for a second year in a row, will not be able to meet worldwide consumption needs.

Professor John Holden, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said recently that climate change is happening a lot faster than predicted. So what, if anything, might this all mean?

The short answer is we don't know for certain. The longer-term answer is we don't know ... for certain. But only fools would act as though nothing has changed or that some very bad things are unlikely to occur. In conclusion, a great many fools inhabit the planet and a great many governments are run by fools.

The remarkable increase in world grain and food production that has occurred over the past 40 or 50 years has begun to slow down. For one, there are more mouths to feed. In 1950 the world's population was less than 3 billion people. Today we have more than twice that number. More people have meant less farmland under cultivation because the land is being used for human habitation.

Perhaps the vegetarians have had it right all along. It seems that as the standard-of-living has risen in many countries, meat consumption has increased. A lot of those slaughtered animals are fed grain. Perhaps a third of the world's grain harvest goes directly to feeding the animals we eat.

A relatively new problem has arisen in our attempt to find alternatives to fossil fuels. The primary reason for the interest in the need to reduce global warming gases as well as the distinct possibility that "black gold" could be a lot less plentiful and cheap. Biofuels is one of the many alternatives.

The potential problem, however, is that a biofuel, like ethanol--sometimes made from corn--and plentiful in the United States, will not be exported to feed primarily poor people overseas, but will be used instead to fuel our vehicles. In a country like the U.S. where there is no genuine energy-conservation-environmental policy, the consequences could be disastrous for grain supplies worldwide.

The potential monster in the room is of course climate change. Melting ice caps, rising sea levels, heatwaves, floods, and desertification could cause global disruptions on a scale we humans can barely envision.

Increasing fuel efficiency standard and establishing authentic conservation policies in the developed world are important. Spending time and money to help people in the developing world grow food in ways that do not harm the environment are worth the effort. But until we believe collectively that a disaster may be inching toward us, and the developed countries find leaders that can both think and imagine, our choices will "drip" away every day.