Predators and Prey

The other day I saw a reasonably well-acted movie about a human predator, in this case a sexual one. The difference this time was that the prey, a fourteen-year old girl, turned the tables on this sorry excuse of a hominid.

And speaking of predators, the Chinese government appears hell bent on trashing the planet in some pathetic desire to become a "great" power, whatever that now means in the era of environmental deterioration. The latest story again goes back to wood.

This time it's a lush, isolated spot of Borneo. China is about to spend billions over the next few years tearing down the forests of Southeast Asia in order to service the needs of its growing middle class, which in the case of China is going to be huge.

Of course it doesn't often take much more than dragging a $100 bill through the military barracks of some of these developing nations to bribe whomever you want. The Chinese have certainly learned their lessons from the West.

The latest obscenity is a "rush order" for a reddish-brown hardwood called merbau, some million cubic yards, in one of the most biologically diverse areas of the world. The purpose for this wood is to build sports facilities for the 2008 Olympic Games to be held in China. Perish the thought that we don't have adequate facilities for our pampered world-class athletes and their increasingly silly activities. The forests are going to disappear Homo sapiens sapiens. Who knows why that could be a very bad thing? In the meantime give them bread in a worldwide circus!

Optimists are fond of pointing out that a society, after a couple of generations, settles down. In other words, a certain standard of living is reached and people want more than "more stuff." Perhaps there are still sane people on this planet that believe we have the time.

The autocrats that currently run China have clearly proven--at least in the short run--that the most irresponsible cartoon capitalism can flourish without democracy. Above all, without any countervailing force to confront this idiocy, this unfolding environmental disaster may happen much sooner.

It's unlikely that these ex-communists "good old boys" are going to become enlightened anytime soon. Nor is any real boycott of the 2008 Olympic Games going to take place. The best we can hope for at this point is that the U.S. regains its sanity--soon. We in the United States certainly are not passive bystanders in this matter. Europe might try harder to internalize the word "survival," and Japan could stop slaughtering whales for no good reason. Just maybe the prey can confound the predator once more.

Idiot Season Begins

It's that familiar sound when spring has arrived in the U.S. It's the chug-chug of the power lawnmower, the whirring of the weed-whacker, and the chemical trucks pulling up to deliver the "fix" to your drug-addicted lawn. It has been a spring ritual for a good 50 years. ( see Turf Terror, November and December 2005 articles).

The encouraging news of course is that this spring obscenity is slowly changing. We're becoming more and more reluctant to dump huge quantities of pesticides and fertilizers on our lawns as well as pouring gallons of water over it, in order to create some artificially induced dreamscape. More and more Americans are coming to realize they can't continue to support this environmental disaster.

The province of Quebec in Canada has now implemented the most stringent standards in North America for lawn-care products. Some 210-lawn products, containing toxic chemicals, are banned. Products that contain 2,4-D are off the market, bringing Canada in line with other countries like Sweden and Denmark. It's time to push these standards throughout all of North America and start living in the twenty-first century.
-----------
Regular gasoline in the U.S. is inching above $3.00 a gallon. Americans are "getting angry," politicians are getting worried or seeing it as an opportunity to oust their opponents. But do we really get it yet?

I frequently drive by a coffee shop in the morning in a relatively affluent area. It clearly is popular because the parking spaces are always full as well as along the side of the street. What is most striking is the number of new SUVs parked there. Will these people feel it when gas prices reach $5.00 a gallon--$6.00? I don't know. But I do not think any reality will sink in for the overwhelming majority of Americans until prices rise to at least $4.00 (regular of course) and stay there.

The recent fuel efficiency standards for vehicles that the fools running America recently implemented are hardly worth the time of day. It might have been a "start" ten years ago. It's not now. Progress is telling the automotive industry it's not voluntary or optional, and it's not when it's convenient. And, it is the U.S. that has to take the lead; we have the greatest number of vehicles clogging up the roads and we're the main polluter on this planet. It's worthwhile when we're setting a GOAL of 100 hundred miles to the gallon.
------------
The Ceres investor coalition not long ago analyzed some 100 major companies, in the U.S. and overseas, as to how effectively they're dealing with global warming. For example, in the oil and gas sector, according to Ceres, BP is a "leader" and (not surprisingly) ExxonMobil is a "laggard." But overall, Ceres states the electric power and oil companies are "largely dismissing" the global warming issue. For that matter entire sectors of the economy have not begun to develop clear strategies. The report is entitled Corporate Governance and Climate Change: Making the Connection. While finding out where our money is being invested is important, we can also begin--in the U.S.--tossing out the political errand boys and girls in the November elections. Yeah, you can make a difference.
------------
Last, but certainly not least, don't let any snake-oil car salesman tell you to buy the car because it's got "hybrid technology." According to Jamie Lincoln Kitman, a bureau chief for Automobile Magazine, in a recent New York Times article, there's the good hybrid and maybe not so good hybrids. For example, Kitman points out that, while the Toyota Prius really does get 40 or more miles to the gallon, it's only when you're just driving around town. On the Interstate it stinks. In this case it becomes--where do you do most of your driving? Being environmentally responsible doesn't mean being an uncritical buyer. Yes, the hybrid may be right for you.

May every day be Earth Day.

Another Wood Story

Continuing the 25 March article, I came across a piece in Aljazeera, entitled "Cheap furniture endangering forests." The developed world wants wood products, the cheaper the better, and most likely oblivious to what "cheap" really means. Of course it's an all too familiar story. And China, the willing middleman, is ready to help, well on the way to controlling approximately one-third of furniture manufacturing worldwide.

The most populous country in the world is now the leading importer of wood from tropical forests in the developing world. Some of the more dismal statistics that the Aljazeera article points out is that illegal logging and corruption is widespread among the developing countries that supply the raw wood. Indonesia has lost about 65% of its ancient forests, and the World Bank claims that the country--within 10 years at the most--will lose some of its "richest" areas unless drastic measures are taken to stop the destruction.

As usual, the local communities where the forests are located receive little in compensation, but by the time the finished product reaches New York, Tokyo or London the value has increased thirty or forty times.

Of course it starts with enlightened political leadership in the developed world educating their consumers. Then it becomes the radical idea that global cartoon capitalism doesn't get to decide how to consume finite resources on the planet. Finally, local communities where the raw material comes from begin to receive fair compensation.

Yes, it's hard work getting ethical and intelligent people in positions where they can see beyond the next week or the next election ... as well as getting all of us to understand that "entitlement" has real limits. The fact that we can build a Hummer doesn't mean we should. When's your next election?

What's Da Plan?

Cellulosic ethanol, extracting electricity out of trees, psychology of risk, and much more arrive almost every day. A lot of creative people, with so many creative ideas, want to make this planet environmentally worth living on.

A few years back we heard about a so-called split in the environmental movement, between those people that believed in "enhanced" democracy versus those that emphasized enhanced technology. Regardless, something has to be enhanced, the sooner the better.

Kimberly-Clark (an example), the largest manufacturer of tissue products in the world, claims on its website that some 1.3 billion people uses its products throughout the world. I have no reason to doubt their claim. We've all heard of Kleenex, Huggies, Kotex, Depends for example. But there is a concern.

It's about all that paper flushed down all those toilets or tossed in all those wastepaper baskets. It is about wood; it is about sustainable forests, biological diversity, endangered species, finite resources, and of course people--a lot of them. If you're a major stockholder in Kimberly-Clark do you salivate at the prospect that the growing yuppie class in Shanghai, China--millions of them--are discovering that along with the I-pod and the laptop they just must have a box of Kleenex? Workers of the world unite!

The corporation's detractors claim that KC is an irresponsible global corporation. They continue, as their opponents state, in spite of frequent, vociferous criticism, to rely on paper pulp made from clear-cut ancient forests, including Canada's Boreal forests. Less than 19% of its fibers come from recycled sources. The industry average, according to CorpWatch, is closer to 60%.

Obviously, as expected, KC denies it's a bad environmental corporation. Their web site has a fairly recent addition on how how well they're now treating forests. They seemingly have come to realize that negative opinion could affect their profits ... at least in the developed world. They're using a lot of recycled paper they say. They are responsible global citizens they announce.

Kimberly-Clark is cutting jobs in North America. Wall Street seems to be happy about the decision. KC is going into the developing markets of Brazil, Russia, India, China, Indonesia, and Turkey. Why shouldn't they? That's where fifty percent or the world's population is located. That's where the "growth" is. North America and Europe are to become mere replacement markets. So what's the plan?

Of course it's about politics. Of course it's about influencing decisions. But do you have some new technology that will help? Where do we put the carbon dioxide? How soon do we have fleets of cars that get 100 mpg? Who will "push" the technology? Who will inspire? No, it's not the Toyota engineer however. I don't know about democracy; it's a system that's hard for most of the people most of the time. But I still prefer it to all the rest.

And what about Kimberly-Clark? Where's the wood coming from to make all those Huggies? How much clear cutting will there be? Will it be nothing more than sterile tree plantations expanding throughout Indonesia and Siberia? You got some technology that will help? You got a plan?

In the meantime buy your toilet paper from companies like Ambiance, Best Value, Earth First, and Sofpac. There are others as well. Of course environmental well-being is too important to be left exclusively to global corporations and the shills that front for them, be they third-world strong men or members of the U.S. Congress. Get busy, get active, and get a plan.

Water Designers

I remember reading at least 25 years ago that the "real" conflict between Israel and the Palestinians would eventually be understood to be a struggle for water rights, not archaic religious differences or whose land some house would be built upon.

A recent newspaper article listed six areas of the world where conflicts could erupt over water. The Union of Concerned Scientists also published a report that evaluated water scarcity, rising populations, and possible clashes. While one of the areas of concern is the River Jordan, affecting Israel, Jordan, and Palestine, the Nile River basin could be the far more dramatic example.

The Nile is the world's longest river. Approximately 40% of Africa's population and some 10 countries live within the Nile basin or close to it. Water is needed for crop irrigation and industry, as well as for drinking. These countries are now accelerating economic growth and building dams, diverting water resources and servicing an expanding population.

Egypt, with some 60 million people, has one of the fastest growing annual population rates in the world, some two percent per year. Ethiopia, a neighbor in the region, has an annual population increase of 3.2%! The unspoken monster in the closet is global warming. No one knows what this might bring. (Some climate models show that most of North Africa will become one of the driest regions in the world by the end of the century.)

In the United States the U.S. Geological Survey recently reported that all of the rivers and streams it surveyed between 1992 and 2001 contained pesticides. The U.S. uses approximately one billion pounds of pesticides every year. The study pointed out, however, that there was no indication that drinking-water standards were compromised, even though no water samples were analyzed at water intakes.

The problem in the United States at this moment in time is not the lack of technology or even financial resources, but the politicization and weakening of government regulatory agencies and the required political "correctness" pressed upon many scientific bodies. It's a matter of trust. The current American government does not engender very much.

In the U.S. population demands may increase the cost of water by some $14 billion in twenty-five years (aqueducts, infrastructure, etc.). If you decide to add in the potential global warming problem, some estimates go up to $105 billion annually. Yes, water or the lack of is not just an issue for the developing world.

In an article entitled "Big Gulp" published in The New York Times, I learned about a company called Ethos Water. This company gives 5 cents of every bottle of water it sells to "helping children get clean water" throughout the world. This article reported that in 2005 some $250,000 was sent to Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India, and some other countries for various water programs. The company's goal is to raise $10 million within the next five years. Starbucks bought the company in 2005 for $8 million. Presumably a big corporation can market Ethos Water on a large scale. Is this not a worthwhile endeavor?

On the other hand, plastic bottles end up in landfills, as well as requiring more than a million barrels of oil to manufacture these bottles each year. There's the cost of shipping, marketing, etc., etc., etc. Finally, as mentioned in other articles, tap water, at least in the developed world, is better regulated than bottled water. Could we not just send the 5 cents to an international agency?

What political choices do we ultimately make? What are we willing to do? Clearly, slowing population growth reduces water "stress." Who do we choose or not choose to represent us--at least among those of us that have the option? Finally, as someone once said, the fact that you can build a Hummer doesn't mean you should. What political choices do we ultimately make?
---------
Potential areas of conflict: Israel, Jordan, Palestine; Turkey and Syria; China and India; Angola and Namibia; Ethiopia and Egypt; Bangladesh and India.

Water Water Everywhere

The Khaleej Times reported recently that water shortages are so bad in Somalia that children, in many cases, have had to drink their own urine. The article goes on to say that parts of Somalia, where temperatures rise to 104 degrees Fahrenheit, people have to survive on the equivalent of three glasses of water per day for "drinking, washing and cooking."

Perhaps it's true that most often it is the obvious that eludes us. This was brought home to me recently when I happened to read an article on bottled water. Over the past six or seven years global consumption has doubled. In 2004 approximately 154 billion liters (41 billion gallons) had been drunk throughout the world. This increase is expected to continue. It is a very big business, well over $200 billion a year. I certainly have been a consumer of this product.

For whatever reason, I can't remember when I started buying bottled water on a regular basis. More important, I'm not exactly sure why I started. My neighborhood supermarket, I "discovered" recently, has at least 40 different brands of bottled water! Once I began studying the shelves devoted to water I realized the packaging was ... well, remarkably compelling in many instances. Equally surprising was where a lot of this water came from. It almost seemed like another example of outsourcing America.

There was an attractive 25 oz bottle of water from the U.K. selling for only $3.29. Canada had a bottle that promised zero arsenic, absolutely no MTBAs, and was 100% glacier water. Germany had a six-pack selling for $6.00. The state of Hawaii was represented, a good 10-hour flight from where I live. Although the Hawaiian bottle was made out of plastic, it looked like Steuben glass--very chic. But the ultimate in fine water consumption had to be the stuff from Fiji, a great looking bottle and a pledge of pristine delight. It could have been mine for $12 a six-pack

We owe most of it to the French. In the 1850s they began to bottle cold spa water. In 1968 Vittel, a French company, came up with the plastic bottle. In the mid-80s science discovered recyclable plastics. The rest is history. But the real story is much more than marketing acumen, gullible people, and the usual corporate "hustle."

Less than 1% of water on our planet is fresh water. There is another 2 to 3% but it's frozen within glaciers and ice caps. Obviously an important question is how much potable water will be available for an increasing world population, as well as what might happen if climate change becomes more than a "slight" adjustment?

China, which much of the world has apparently decided will be the next "great" power, is now having serious water problems. Because of its rapid industrialization, this country of 1.3 billion has managed to pollute a large portion of its water supply. The World Health Organization estimates that around 700 million Chinese drink water that doesn't meet minimum standards, which is the total population of the U.S. and most of Europe. The sales of bottled water, however, are increasing dramatically.

In general, in the "developed" world, tap water is safe to drink and can be made even safer still if we decide to start paying attention to it. In the United States and Europe tap water is regulated more stringently than is bottled water. It's also energy-efficient, unlike much of the foolishness of shipping, for example, bottled water from Hawaii to the middle of the United States.

It takes a lot of fossil fuel to move water from Fiji in the Pacific Ocean, thousands of miles, to my supermarket in the mid-west. It also requires a lot of plastic, another oil product. The packaging is polyethylene terphthalate. Plastic bottles wrapped in plastic packaging, made from crude oil, which globally amounts to some 3 million tons of plastic and--last but not least--according to the Container Recycling Institute, only about 14% of plastic bottles gets recycled, at least in the U.S.

In the developing world bottled water consumption is growing, certainly among the upwardly mobile, especially in countries like China and India. A lot of wealthy corporations will likely get a great deal wealthier selling one of life's essential needs. A problem, however, is that the majority of people in the developing world cannot afford bottled water. As well, a growing concern is the fact there are water shortages in many communities, because water tables have dropped rapidly due to water being quite literally sucked up by the bottling companies.

Contrary to what the well-groomed, shiny suits may tell us, bottled water in the developed world is not any guarantee that it is any better or safer than the water we drink out of the tap. In the developing world in many cases, with little or no regulations, it's buyer beware. That water in the bottle may actually have come from the stream containing bacteria, parasites, and chemical contaminants.

Bottled water is clearly not the answer in both the short term and the long term, no matter how it is packaged and marketed. The United Nations Millennium Report says that about $30 billion will have to be spent on water supply and sanitation over the next fifteen years if we want to significantly reduce the number of people who do not have a safe water supply. A lot of money yes, but approximately $100 billion is spent each year on bottled water.

In the developed world it's a matter of using some small amount of critical thinking skills; not that we must not ever drink bottled water, but how much do we really need, and why are we drinking water that is produced several time zones away? Are we all that easy to fool?

In the developing world it is and will become a matter of survival. But we in the West, trying to decide between the Fiji water and some other bottle of imaginary delights, will ultimately find this problem reaching our own doors as well, if we aren't willing to address it now. Evian spelled backwards is "naive." Water-water everywhere, but maybe not a drop to drink.

A Scourge

On the face of it what do Danish cartoons and Muslim rage have to do with the environment? Well, if nothing else, it should be an incentive for the West to implement an "energy" Marshall Plan. Admittedly, the fact that the U.S., at the moment, is certifiably brain dead makes it more difficult, but not impossible. We need to get very busy.

I've certainly attempted to try and understand the "visceral" rage of the Muslims. I've read about how the West exploited the Islamic world beginning in the nineteenth century. I totally agree. Of course, the exploitation was relatively easy after the Ottoman Empire had turned the region it controlled into an ossified, decaying relic, where millions of Muslims were exploited by their own governments as well as by religious superstition.

Many Muslims today are being discriminated against in the West. It seems most likely. We need to talk to one another, sooner than later. Should we begin before or after the burning stops, the manipulation ends, and the endless, threatening fatwahs cease?

The Danish publisher of the cartoons apparently intended to provoke--someone. The fact that he supposedly refused to publish similar cartoons of Jesus Christ, because he didn't want to offend Christians, doesn't help his credibility one bit.

I do, however, find religious fundamentalism--of any type--loathsome and detestable. It has nothing to do with rational thought. It certainly won't help us take real responsibility for the well being of the planet we live on. I find more transcendence in one sunset than all the ignorant ravings of the temple priests anywhere and anytime.

The decision is easy. Of course I'm a Dane. I have to be.

Beer, Clothing, and Pet Food

In 1967 the population of the United States reached 200 million. Life magazine, among others, featured the arrival of the baby that supposedly was number 200 million. This coming October it's expected that an infant will be born bringing us to 300 million, ranking the U.S. third in population after China and India. Will there be the same interest in 2006 as there was in 1967?

The Director for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank in the United States, wrote an article in which he expressed his fervent belief that pesticides and biotechnology will allow food production to keep pace with growing world population. The writer accepts the generally held belief that by 2050 we will have added another 3 billion people to the planet. The author warns, however, that "eco-extremists" and the "con of the 'organic utopia' " must not be allowed to confuse consumers; otherwise we will not be able to meet world food demand.

Others, possibly less politically conservative, speak of the next generation of computers and the potential of nanotechnology that could lead us to creative new design structures and innovative energy efficiencies, thus allowing us to adapt to all sorts of things, possibly even to extreme climate change, which we humans have likely contributed to.

But something about all of this seems shopworn, so familiar, and fraying around the edges. Feudalism and the "divine" right of kings were considered sacrosanct and clearly representing the best of all worlds once upon a time. Is a poverty of imagination our real problem?

The Hudson Institute article assumes that the world can sustain the same traditional market economy. Individual income growth will expand with rising population, according to the article, and we are going to have to meet the expanding worldwide desire for products like "beer, clothing and pet food." Apparently nothing is really going to change.

Will advertisers convince teenagers in Mali that they can't be truly happy without cell phones? The mining companies in the Congo certainly stand ready to step up their digging of coltan, the metallic ore with the unique properties for storing electrical charges necessary for cell phones to function. Yes there are numerous adverse environmental consequences ... but maybe technology will somehow save the day once again. Can the developing world use more of our discarded computers? Perhaps we could give free psychotropic drugs to the 9 billion people in 2050, so that for one day a week all of us on planet Earth might believe this is the best of all possible worlds.

I'm waiting for the next generation of thinkers. Now that idea is exciting.

Not To Worry

Whatever happened to that population "bomb"? More than thirty years ago a biologist by the name of Paul Ehrlich wrote a best selling book entitled The Population Bomb. He predicted that famine and mass starvation would be the lot of the human race because of overpopulation on planet Earth, and likely beginning in the late 1970s. Thomas Malthus, an Englishman, some 200 years before Ehrlich, also predicted dire consequences due to increasing population. Well, it didn't come to pass. There's hardly a whisper about growing world population today. Not to worry?

The word sustainability is on everyone's lips; technological breakthroughs appear on websites and various blogs almost daily. It is de rigueur among corporations to now speak forcefully about "greening." Even the remarkable disaster currently dwelling in the White House mentions environmental responsibility from time to time. But only a soft murmur is heard about all these people easing their way out of the birth canal every day. No big deal?

At the time of Caesar Augustus in the first century there were slightly less than one billion people living on the planet. Some 1,800 years later we had just about one billion people wandering around. One hundred-twenty three years later we had 2 billion people using the planet's resources. In 1960, thirty years later, we had 3 billion people spreading out across the third planet from the sun. Today there are 6.5 billion Homo sapiens on Earth. Where's the footprint? Is there one?

The United Nations believes it's possible that nine billion people will inhabit this world by 2050, an extra 200,000 people each day. Others estimate that we could have 12 billion inhabitants on the globe before population finally levels off. Some conservation groups believe we're utilizing around 20% more renewable resources than we'll be able to restore each year. Will we all eat cake?

China has clearly demonstrated that a police state--at least in the short run--can create a vibrant form of capitalism. I-Pods and designer jeans will always trump free speech and environmental accountability ... at least in the short run. Of course we can sustain several billion more people on our one and only planet as long as we are far more energy efficient, reorder world priorities, quickly reduce superstition and ignorance, and accept an overall lower standard of living within perhaps the next 50 to 100 years. Not to worry. But what if we had only 5 billion people taking up space in 2050? And, what if we seriously started talking about population control--oh, I mean family planning.

The Yellow Brick Road

Time to "think" about throwing the witches and the wizards out of the castle windows in 2006, and not only in America. While individual and local change need to be encouraged even more, carbon dioxide, melting ice, and polluted rivers don't much care about an individual or the exemplary village. Voluntary efforts ought to be praised, but stateless global institutions usually need to be kicked into action. Don't be afraid of taking the smile off the politician's face if he or she never delivers. Stop making excuses for religious fascism anywhere in the world. And of course China and India--with more than a quarter of the world's population--are not entitled to any free ride, in order to "catch up." May the year be interesting.

America's Turf Terror (IV)

The former members of the 9/11 commission said recently that the U.S. Congress and the White House have done a miserable job protecting the country from another terrorist attack. Especially harsh criticism was leveled against Congress for not securing chemical plants. Surprised? Why? The industry has been buying politicians for years, as well as deliberately misleading the public.

One of the national lawn care companies states in its sales brochure that it's got chemicals for early spring to deal with "winter stresses." In the early summer it has chemicals to help you "prepare" for the nasty summer. In the early fall the candy man has the elixir to help your sensitive mono-turf recover from the "stresses of summer." And of course they promise winter protection for your lawn's "winter survival." How did nature survive before humans developed all these chemicals and tools to create and protect our precious, artificially induced neighborhood turf? If it talks like a snake oil salesman....

It's legitimate to ask what did they know and when did they know it, as far back as the end of World War II. After the war the chemical companies reworked the original formulas. Lower doses were created to kill insects instead of people. The toxicity to humans, however, did not suddenly vanish. What did become more difficult was establishing cause and effect and the connection between symptoms and exposure. But fifty years later we've learned a lot about the cumulative and possibly long lasting effects of these toxins on the environment, on animals, and on people.

For many researchers and scientists it has already talked like a duck. A number of commonly used lawn pesticides may have links to cancer, kidney and liver disease, birth defects, and neurological disorders, to name just a few possibilities. Pesticides have been found in groundwater, and are toxic to birds, bees, fish and aquatic organisms.

DDT, the pesticide that was banned back in 1971, still turns up in animal tissue more than thirty years later, along with PCBs, chlordane, dieldan, and a host of other synthetic chemicals. A Canadian study sponsored by Environmental Defense, examined blood and urine samples of volunteers living in different parts of the country. All the volunteers had high levels of assorted chemicals, which included pesticides. The Center for Disease Control in the United States has also conducted similar studies and has come up with similar results.

The chemical fertilizers we pour on our lawns, and golf courses--a disturbing story all its own, are "stimulants." They wash away and increase concentrations of nutrients that can end up intensifying algae growth and decreasing dissolved oxygen in water.

We Americans clearly love our poisons. By some estimates at least 90 million pounds of pesticides are tossed on our lawns and gardens. We also tend to apply them more intensively than farmers do on their crops. Agriculture averages about 2.7 pounds per acre, while homeowners average somewhere between 3.2 to 9.8 pounds per acre for lawns.

The Audubon Society has estimated that a "typical" lawn might receive as much as 20 pounds of fertilizer and 10 pounds of pesticide a year. Finally, a one-third acre lawn could consume 170,000 gallons of water in a summer!

The Environmental Protection Agency has listed lawn mowers as an important source of ozone-causing pollution. In fact, the EPA found that lawn and garden equipment in metropolitan areas (where most of us live) increases air pollution in some cases by more than 20 percent. A member of the California Air Resources Board once said that using a gasoline-powered lawn mower for one hour is like "driving a minimum of 10 cars." This person also added it could be "up to 30 or 40" if you're using an old lawn mower.

Want a lawn that's fairway smooth? Sam Snead's voice whispers from the past. Well, not as much as we once did, Sammy ... fortunately. But we're still poisoning ourselves and our children to death. But don't worry. Trust us. Be happy.
-----------------------------------------------------------

There are plenty of alternatives to "plastic" lawns, as well as ways to change stupid laws. Just a few places to begin:

Wild Ones: www.for-wild.org
"When Cities Grow Wild": www.for-wild.org
National Coalition for Pesticide-Free Lawns: www.beyondpesticides.org
EPA, "Lawn and Gardens": www.epa.gov
Refuse to Use Lawn Chemicals: www.ghorganics.com
Lawn Mower Pollution: www.greengrasscutters.com
Pesticide Action Network North America: www.panna.org

SourceWatch: www.sourcewatch.org A good place to find out about industry "front" groups.

About your friendly chemical industry:

Environmental Working Group: www.ewg.org
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility: "What is CHEERS?" www.peer.org
Chemical/manufacturers top recipients: www.opensecrets.org
AlterNet, "Open to Attack" 10/29/03 www.alternet.org

America's Turf Terror (III)

We are watching the entire United States, but particularly the border states of New York, Connecticut, Maine, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Washington, for any activity relating to banning pesticides.

[Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment, 2005 (pesticide/fertilizer lobbying group)]

What are the final pieces in America's multi-billion dollar "grass" trade industry?

Weed control ordinances started appearing in the mid-1940s, and over the next fifty plus years they arose in practically every metropolitan area of the U.S. Within a remarkable uniformity of acceptable appearance, there were also numerous differences. It was generally agreed that grass had to be kept short, but short could mean no more than 10 inches in some towns, 12 inches in others, 14 in some, and so forth.

Everyone agreed that "weeds" were bad, but what constituted a weed could vary considerably from one town to the next. Once you got beyond crabgrass, dandelions, and one or two other all-purpose villains, the weed menace got murky.

Penalities varied as well, from only a slap on the wrist to hefty fines for violations. The stated reasons for enacting these laws were numerous. For some communities weed control laws "protected" the public from neglectful homeowners. Sometimes it was because tall grass and weeds were considered a fire hazard or an attraction to rats and mosquitoes. In some cases weed control laws were enacted because weeds supposedly produced pollen and therefore caused suffering among people with allergies.

Once in a while the ordinance was thought important because it helped prevent the growth and camouflage of, er, possibly an illegal substance? The lawn and garden industry, in general, was more than happy to encourage and promote all the half-truths and outright fairy tales that have blanketed America, pretty much to the present.

It is not uncommon today in many communities across America, perhaps on a spring Saturday in June, to find the noise levels approaching mid-town Manhattan at rush hour. SUV-sized lawnmowers lumber across the grass, while the sound from the house next door might be the whirl of the omnipresent weed whacker, or better still, the screech of the leaf blower. Down the street someone with furrowed brow is clutching the gasoline or electric powered hedge clippers.

Finally, at the corner house, the lawn company truck pulls up. This time it's the chemical folks about to put down the "needed" spring fertilizer, the June herbicide, or maybe the quarterly fungicide. Next time it might be the lawnmower guy with his gargantuan machine. He'll race across the lawn, give a quick once over with the "whacker," and then hop back in his truck. Time is money. Turn on your lawn sprinkler and relax.

The devil--as we've often heard--is in the details. The details, as we're learning more and more, could be long lasting and quite unpleasant. But that's the next, and final, story.

The pesticide and fertilizer lobby in the United States may have to become even more vigilant. The Supreme Court of Canada recently upheld a Toronto pesticide ban, which permits Canadian cities to stop the use of "controversial" lawn chemicals. Croplife Canada, a trade association that includes pesticide producers, had been fighting the Toronto law for two years. Is it only a matter of time before these "dangerous" ideas seep across America's northern border and destroy our way of life? Thank goodness for Homeland Security and the Patriot Act.

TO BE CONTINUED

America's Turf Terror (II)

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 1920s. The age of modern advertising began in this decade. Anything could be sold to the public these modern day alchemists told their clients ... and they were mostly right.

The 1920s proved to be a sparkling new era for American lawns and all it represented. The wealthy created gardens on large estates from the east coast to the west coast. The popularity of golf took off in the 1920s. As more and more Americans started playing the game, it wasn't long before a few perceptive businesses and advertisers started encouraging homeowners to create that golf course "look" with their own lawns. The Depression and World War II slowed things down but only momentarily.

The chemical companies had been kept busy during the war developing various compounds and mixtures, in the fight against fascism. What they had discovered and developed during wartime, they were determined to market during peacetime.

A "new" series of summer insecticides appeared in the 1950s. They included DDT, DDD, BHC as well as chlordane, aldrin, and dieldrin. Some of the phosophates included parathion, diazinon, and metacide. The list went on and on. Some "experts" even talked about the future for curing plant disease might be chemotherapy. Cancer patients were apparently not the only ones with some hope now.

A number of lawn care people recommended products that had been developed by military chemical warfare specialists--as a weapon against crabgrass. Chlordane was initially thought to be the most effective herbicide. Then came potassium cyanate, followed by lead arsenate and ammonium sulfate. One chemical company came out with a product that was advertised as the ultimate in the war against broad-leaved weeds, the now infamous 2,4-D. Some fifteen years later this became the main ingredient in the defoliant Agent Orange used in Vietnam.

What a glorious time! Farmers were spraying crops with all these modern chemicals, wherever and whenever they could. Don't worry. Be happy. Trust us. Homeowners put down new lawns, poured on water, fertilizer, and lime. We mowed the lawns, not letting the grass grow more than a few inches. Then we added chemicals to kill "weeds," insects, and those damn rodents. We rested a while. Then we started all over again and again, and again. A drug-addicted landscape rapidly spread across America. Don't worry. Be happy.

But someone spoiled the party in 1962. A little known marine biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service named Rachel Carson wrote a book entitled Silent Spring. Perhaps what we were doing to our planet might be very bad Ms. Carson suggested; the massive, indiscriminate use of pesticides had to stop if we wanted a livable environment. The lawn care industry, especially the chemical companies, did not like what Rachel Carson had to say. But of course the industry, then and now, knew only one way to deal with any critic. They attacked her. She was threatened with lawsuits, and accused of being unqualified and hysterical, among other things. But a lot of unquestioned beliefs were beginning to unravel in the 1960s.
TO BE CONTINUED

America's Turf Terror (I)

What was the best "con" of the twentieth century? My vote goes to the worldwide diamond trade. Debeers and friends, who consolidated the markets in the late nineteenth century, secured a monopoly of truly remarkable proportions. Who in the world today doesn't know that a diamond is forever and is also a girl's best friend?

The "grass" trade in the United States may not be in the same league as the diamond monopoly, nor did it deliberately start out in its early days to convince all Americans that a weed-free, dark green lawn, of a certain height and texture was a sign of integrity and character; nevertheless, the industry eventually understood, at least by the late 1940s, there was a lot of money to be made getting people to believe in that one "correct" way. They succeeded beyond anyone's expectations.

This multi-billion dollar business, run by the chemical and lawn equipment manufacturers, and supported by the numerous lawn maintenance companies, garden furniture, etc., had not caught my attention for some time, until I came across a recent magazine article about the annual trade show for the lawn and landscaping industry, held in Orlando, Florida.

Over the past several years the industry has had some financial difficulties, because of the public's increasing awareness of toxic chemicals, pollution, local pesticide bans, the growing natural landscaping movement and finally, cultural changes. It seems, however, that the industry has decided to fight back by attacking its favorite straw man, the "environmentalists," while at the same time trying to revive the old time religion. Some of the same marketing strategies used fifty years ago are being employed once again.

In the 1950s the American lawn arrived. The Garden Club of America, the United States Golf Association, as well as the U.S. Department of Agriculture exerted considerable sway over standards and convinced a lot of Americans they knew what was best. In How to Landscape Your Grounds, published in 1950, wealthier Americans were told, "it is inexplicable why we have so many heterogeneous, unattractive and commonplace properties otherwise refined and cultured." Later in the same book we learn that "those in the lower and medium income groups" want the same refinement as the upper crust.

This was also the period when the U.S. was in the "cold" war with the Soviet Union. We had to be vigilant--toward the communists as well as our grass. Advertisements were full of words like never surrender ... sure to-kill ingredients ... take up arms ... and slaughter by chemical warfare. Famous golfers like Sam Snead helped advertise the new power lawnmowers. Want a lawn that's fairway-smooth? Sammy asked us. Get a Toro.

Now there was the deliberate promotion of an unnatural aesthetic conformity, which over time covered millions of acres requiring billions of dollars in equipment, chemicals and upkeep. A nice lawn was, of course, a sign of substance and gravitas. And we believed every word of this artificial--and ultimately harmful--dreamscape. This illusion definitely needs to be relegated to the ashcan of history once and for all.
TO BE CONTINUED

Frag-Men-Ta-Tion

The well-dressed man, probably in his thirties and clutching his bible, stood on the street corner outside of an Irish pub quite literally screaming about Jesus, sin, and impending doom. I'd just come out of the movie theater. Across the street two college boys yelled at him to "go fuck" himself. Not a good thing to say to an aspiring martyr. It began to drizzle.

The Kansas State Board of Education recently mandated that "Intelligent Design" be incorporated into the state science curriculum. A well-known medical establishment in Kansas City has decided to take its multi-million dollar stem-cell research program to Massachusetts, a friendlier science environment. Bob Dylan once sang of the reincarnation of Paul Revere's horse.

After more than 40 years of protection and preservation, the U.S. Senate voted to drill in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. Stupidity and corruption are a potent combination. Yet--a week later--the House of Representatives took the oil drilling provision out of the budget bill. A temporary reprieve?

I read recently that with only 5 percent of the world's population the United States generates 30 percent of the world's trash. Who said America's manufacturing base is deteriorating? We've set a high bar for China and India to emulate.

Hurricane Katrina has worsened starvation in Malawi, a country in Africa few people have heard of. When Katrina shut down New Orleans' shipping, the Japanese had to buy their corn in South Africa. The price of South African corn shot up and Malawi couldn't afford it. A picture in a local newspaper a couple of days ago showed 2.7 million bushels of corn piled up outside of a co-op grain silo in Iowa. The silo is full and presumably the excess corn will rot. Could someone actually use this "extra" corn?

There seems to be a shortage of water in the Brazilian Amazon, as hard as that is to believe. In the southwest Brazilian Amazon many lakes are going dry, tons of dead fish are strewn along empty riverbeds, and villages dependent on water travel have become isolated.

No one can say for certain, but rising surface temperatures in the northern Atlantic might have something to do with the drought according to some. But others suggest that the massive deforestation in the Amazon has eliminated forest cover, which has reduced moisture and rainfall. "Negative synergies" as the researchers might say but regardless; the daisy chain is unraveling.

What's to be done? Diane Ackerman said in her book, An Alchemy of Mind, that evolution must have a sense of humor: We have brains that can conceive of states of perfection they can't achieve.

This is the "mysterious" of the moment. Of course a a sixth mass extinction is possible; we've had five over the past 400 million years. Scientists estimate that at least 99.9% of all species of plants and animals that ever lived are now extinct. Yet, new technologies and new ideas are springing up everywhere, everyday, in different places.

Environmental scientists speak of fragmentation, where large units of habitat are broken into smaller units. Thus, a loss of habitat as well as the isolation of the remaining territory occurs. A problem can develop when the interaction between some organisms situated in these different fragmentary locations causes them to be, for all practical purposes, separate populations. How fast can we alter human fragmentation? What are we willing to do--to do it?

A Druid Nation

The well-known reality is that 102 Puritans from England landed at Plymouth, Massachusetts on December 21, 1620.

But instead of Puritans, imagine the same number of Buddhist monks had arrived. Or, perhaps a boatload of Druids came ashore on that cold, miserable day in December. Envision the last remaining members of that mysterious priesthood, first mentioned in Julius Caesar's diaries in 55 B.C, standing on the beaches of North America.

Would the original inhabitants of North America have been treated better? Would there have been slavery? Would the United States have become, for lack of a better word, a more eco-friendly country from the very beginning?

Alas, the arrival of Europeans, or for that matter benign Buddhist monks, probably meant the civilizations of North and South America were fated from the start, almost from the moment the conquistadors clanked ashore in their suits of armor in the fifteenth century. But it was not because of guns, or horses, or organization, or corruption of the locals--or Christianity. The unstoppable enemy was disease, unwittingly brought (at least initially) by Europeans, of which "Native-Americans" had no immunity.

Because of Jared Diamond and others, we know that geography matters--and matters a lot. Unlike the early inhabitants in the Western Hemisphere, Europeans had domesticated animals such as oxen, cows, and pigs that did not exist in North and South America. Humans contracted diseases that jumped from animals to humans and over time built up a degree of resistance to them. Columbus, Ponce de Leon, Cortez, Pizarro and other Europeans traveled with the ultimate weapon--not gunpowder--but hideous viruses like smallpox, typhus, influenza, diphtheria, and measles. It turned out to be an unimaginable "ethnic cleansing" of entire civilizations. It may have been the greatest pandemic in human history.

A number of Christian fundamentalists in the United States, in their feverish fantasy of turning the country into some nonsensical theocracy, claim that the U.S. is a "Christian" nation: Christian only among the deluded perhaps.

What we know now--because of science and a readiness to consider other possibilities--is that North America (along with Central and South America) was not an immaculate, virgin forest, inhabited by a handful of primitive savages--"noble" or otherwise.

Prior to the arrival of Europeans, the continent was teeming with civilization, and religion, and diverse groups of people, and yes, even wisdom ... the kind that may still have environmental relevance in our present day. Grasslands had been burned for thousands of years to prevent the encroachment of forests; farming was common; villages and towns existed throughout the continent; trade and commerce had been flourishing for hundreds of years. (For anyone interested in some fascinating--and oftentimes controversial--theories about the Americas, a worthwhile read is 1491 by Charles C. Mann.)

The what if struck me again and again as I read Mann's book. And, while the winners may write history, we humans collectively enjoy our "soothing" songs, stories, and myths. More to the point, we don't like them questioned or challenged.

About a week ago one of the leading science advisory groups in the United States said the U.S. "could soon lose" its competitive edge in science. But, if even half the numerous polls and surveys are correct, nearly three-quarters of Americans believe in and are guided by magic. What if?

In Me Believe (2)

If religious emotions can be elicited by natural reality--and I believe that they can--then the story of Nature has the potential to serve as the cosmos for the global ethos that we need to articulate

Ursula Goodenough, biologist

Carlos Castaneda, a New Age superstar in the 1970's, had revelations while sitting with his mentor Don Juan in the Mexico desert, consuming peyote cactus and other hallucinogenic drugs. Castaneda would talk to the animals and sometimes become a crow--literally. Carlos received a doctorate in anthropology from UCLA in 1972.

Kathryn Lindskoog in her 1993 book Fakes, Frauds, and Other Marlarky said, "The next time you come close to a crow, try calling out 'Hello Carlos!' If you are high enough on peyote, you might hear the bird answer."

Rational thought, critical thinking--and science--have always held on by the slimmest of threads throughout human history. It's nothing new. Thinking, and certainly science, is hard work. Science believes knowledge of the external world can only be determined from objective investigation and, most importantly, is accessible to everyone.

Compared with critical thinking, the prophetic voice and "divine" inspiration is positively enchanting, and easy. Above all, it promises personal salvation or eternal bliss. Science only points out what is: It's ice cream versus spinach.

Some of our religious tales would sound like a lunatic's rant if uttered by a lone person at, for example, my fictitious encounter in the Little Rock airport in the previous article. But collectively we are quite willing to suspend disbelief, no matter how absurd the story might be. One of the silliest yarns, right up there with Jack and the Beanstalk, is the "communion host" during a Catholic mass magically turning into the living body of Jesus Christ.

A collection of old men in the thirteenth century formally established this cock-and-bull belief. At this same meeting these wise Christian clerics agreed on the "rules" of torture and further prohibitions against the evil Jews. While Islam at the present time has a tenuous hold on first place for sheer benightedness, many Christians, especially in the United States, are confident they can once again achieve the top spot they held for so long.

What remains to be said about Islam at this point? One apologia after another appears almost weekly informing us "this doesn't represent Islam." But it really does though; time to stop pretending otherwise. The description of the Islamic paradise conjures up an upper class Victorian brothel, where the rich and wellborn would vanish for a night of "otherworldly" pleasure. But in an Islamic society, where sex is so firmly repressed, all those virgins waiting beside the unpolluted brook in the afterlife sound deliciously compelling.

For a couple of weeks on the nightly news I watched Israeli settlers in the Gaza strip being dragged off by clearly uncomfortable Israeli soldiers. The settlers were being forcibly removed from these illegal communities. Many glass-eyed and enraged settlers screamed into the television cameras that "God" had given them this land. I assume God is the Bronze Age sociopath called Yahweh. The same god that killed Moses' two nephews with lightning bolts. This was also the weapon of choice for Zeus. Apparently some humans didn't mix the incense correctly. All in all I prefer the Greek god; he simply had far more panache.

More than ever, I believe, our traditional religions have outlived their usefulness and have become positively dangerous to our well-being. If we can only get through another century--a big if--we might have a chance. But for the first time in human history we have begun to learn how the human mind functions, how it thinks, and how it creates stories, myths, and religions. We're starting to understand just how our brains are designed to find and hold onto the most "rewarding" view of things.

What we need to do in the meantime is not bemoan the existence of the assorted temple priests or complain about the "gullibility" of their followers, but start articulating alternatives that are equally compelling and that provide the same spiritual ( or mystical, or sacred, or divine, or new consciousness ) comfort. The first step is considering something else. After that we may be able to grasp that we are not separate and apart from all the rest of life.

Ultimately, all religions have to resort to a "magical entity." Even the Dalai Lama, the epitome of the enlightened religious leader, reverts back to gobbledygook when there is no scientific explanation. He explains it in terms of the Buddhist karma. It just is. But this is really no different from the views of the Intelligent Design crowd. Of course--as always--what happens when science comes up with a description that explains what was previously thought to be the work of some god? Religion tweaks the story: Maybe Santa doesn't exist, but your grandfather's ghost really does live in the attic.

Leonardo da Vinci is arguably one of the most extraordinary men in human history. While widely known for his famous painting the Mona Lisa, Da Vinci was also a proficient engineer and technical illustrator. His anatomical drawings, because of their accuracy, are still used today.

But what is of particular interest, I believe, and pointed out in a recent television program, was his astounding powers of observation and critical thinking. He discovered the closing mechanism of the aortic heart valve some 500 years before we in the modern world knew virtually anything about the heart mechanism.

In a recent experiment engineers in England built a "plane" based on a Da Vinci design, using only material that were available in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century. Not only did this machine fly, but it also stayed in the air longer than the Wright Brothers' original flight in the twentieth century.

Leonardo throughout his life was obsessed by flight. His minute studies of birds and bats as well as the currents of water that fish swam in gave him the theoretical knowledge for his numerous designs and ideas.

The point of this is not that we can all become just like Leonardo da Vinci, but we all have the power to observe and to think and, most importantly, conceive of something else. We need no gods to explain our existence. That we know we exist is miracle enough.

Two books worth reading for anyone interested in some alternatives to the "old" world are How We Believe by Michael Shermer and The End of Faith by Sam Harris.

Graffiti discovered on a wall in Rome dating back to the second century depicts a man with the head of a donkey stretched upon a cross. Standing below and to the side is a stick figure of a man and underneath a caption reads, Alexamenos worships God. Little did the street artist know that in slightly more than 200 years Romans would be subject to punishment for not worshipping God. Time to imagine something else, minus the punishment.

In Me Believe ( 1 )

So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end; it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?

Stephen Hawkins, cosmologist

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As recorded in my private journal:

1971 My car broke down when I once traveled through rural Mexico. By chance I noticed two individuals sitting cross-legged by some cactus not far from where I stood. When I approached the two men one of them appeared to be in some sort of trance. I turned to the other man, who informed me that "Carlos is talking to the animals."

Reported in 2005 A free-lance journalist on assignment in the Gaza strip had been observing a screaming Israeli settler being dragged off by two Israeli soldiers. The journalist's Hebrew was not good but he thought the settler had mumbled something about someone "very important" had given him the land--all of it. The journalist wondered why the Israel government, the only democracy in the region, would do this to one of its citizens?

2003 An Arab-American businessman I knew slightly had been asked to meet someone in a small coffee shop two years ago in downtown Damascus, Syria. The nondescript stranger arrived a few minutes later and told this acquaintance of mine that he had a "once in a lifetime proposition." The man handed the American businessman four sticks of dynamite and a triggering device. The startled businessman went to stand up to leave, but this stranger pleaded with him to just hear him out. He informed the American that he could guarantee for all eternity a new Ferrari or Porsche every year, between 20 to 24 of the most beautiful women to satisfy his every need, along with an unlimited supply of money, fine homes, good food, and unimaginable luxuries--forever. The American businessman would only have to enter a grocery store in a nearby country....

1998 Several years ago I was seated at an airport bar in Little Rock, Arkansas. Unexpectedly, a man beside me introduced himself and offered me one of the crackers he was munching on. I don't like crackers so I politely said no thank you. But taking a bite of his oval-shaped cracker, this stranger told me that he was "eating the body." Before I could get some explanation, the man sipped his glass of red wine, and informed me with a pleasant smile that he was "drinking the blood."

Seven years old No Santa Claus! To this day I remember in almost every detail when my best friend told me there was no kindly, pipe smoking, overweight, bearded white man, who dropped down from the chimney or came in the back door to deliver my Christmas presents. It was a devastating revelation when my mother, a few minutes later, who was ironing clothes in the kitchen, confirmed this truth. To this day, however, I still like reading on Christmas Eve, It was the night before Christmas and all through the house....

1989-1992 Derrick Harley, a good friend of mine, in 1989 was visited by a large, spotted tree frog in a dream. The frog told Derrick to "go forth" and recruit 23 disciples. This he accomplished withing six months. Derrick was also instructed to self-publish a short monograph. The monograph outlined the basic tenets of the Grean.

By 1991 the disciples were proselytizing throughout the United States, Brazil and Western Europe. By 1992 there were nearly 2,000 followers of the Grean throughout the world. Sadly, a druken motorcyclist struck and killed Derrick while he was meditating by the side of the road in upstate New York in the summer of 1992. The movement collapsed. But what if Derrick had lived?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The writer Salman Rushdie was asked, in a recent television interview, what was the most important lesson he'd learned from the Iranian fatwa issued against him, and which lasted for nearly ten years, condemning him to death because of alleged blasphemy against Islam. Rushdie replied that you can not compromise with religious fundamentalism.

The former head of Bush's Council on Environmental Quality, as we eventually learned, "modified" reports on climate change. If you don't like the science--change it.

If it were only the theater of the absurd, but it's not. It really is zero-sum.

WILL BE CONTINUED

Cow Dung My Boy!

What a remarkable collection of ideas ( good, bad, merely interesting ) and technologies one can discover meandering through the numerous environmental blogs and websites.

At Ohio State University researchers have been experimenting with farm waste, attempting to develop fuel cells that can generate electricity from a chemical reaction. One researcher suggested the "hope" that farmers some day might be able to use the manure to ultimately generate sufficient power to run their business.

A few days ago I learned of a company ( www.chocolatebar.com ) that makes chocolate products; ten percent of the company's profits is donated to support the protection of endangered species. Anyone interested in how to choose the "right" chocolate, by avoiding those firms that harm tropical ecosystems, might check out Rainforest Relief at www.rainforestrelief.org/

Yes, there are numerous individuals, companies, and organizations throughout the world doing innovative things, and conceiving of what has not been considered before--and they deserve our support. But bear in mind....

More than one-quarter of the world's population ( 1.6 billion ) do not have electricity in their homes or a continuing source of safe drinking water. At least another one or two billion people are in debilitating poverty and have virtually no options at the present time. This means that approximately one-half of the human population on planet Earth is living a life of quiet desperation. But quiet for how long?

Now consider the approximately one-half billion people ( conservatively ) right now that want exactly what the middle and upper classes have in Europe, Japan, and North America. Think of all those ambitious young Indians, in all those call centers, spreading throughout all of India, wanting all the "stuff." And what about all those hard-driving, growing middle class folks in China? They want stuff too. Who wants to go to a friend's house on a bicycle when you can afford to ride in your own automobile. Shall we in Japan, Europe, and the United States tell them that all the stuff is really not what they ought to be striving for? Because some of those bits and pieces--at least for a while--will be electricity, fresh water, decent health care, education ... and choice.

The World Bank recently proposed a "new" accounting method that takes in natural and human wealth. It seems to me I heard this idea expressed more than ten years ago by an economist specializing in environmental economics. But better late than never. The report stated that governments need to consider, along with GDP and other traditional factors, such things as resource depletion and population growth to develop a "more complete vision" of a country's wealth. In other words environmental costs need to be considered.

Wangari Maathai from Kenya and the 2004 Nobel peace laureate said, "It is a pity the most important ministries are the foreign ministry and the defense ministry, yet the new enemy is the destruction of our environment."

Peter Seligmann head of Conservation International said, "Why do we have to go through the intellectual exercise of explaining why we need to protect the only place we can live on?" Why indeed?

Yesterday morning I discovered a small possum curled up asleep in my recycle bin on the back porch. He was lying between a plastic water bottle and a tin can. I returned back inside the house, closing the door as quietly as possible. Giving up is not an option I can contemplate.

An End Beginning

Hurricane Katrina will be the ultimate rusty nail in the coffin--in a perfect society. The oil pimp buffoon that currently inhabits the White House would implode. The gangsters and incompetents that surround this "make-believe" president would be either in jail or in permanent exile. Darfur, Sudan would be the place I'd recommend. Refuge camps can always use water carriers.

The free-market idealogues and their assorted camp followers would become community jesters, required to live in the poorest parts of America for the remainder of their lives. Religious fascists, because Americans are a generous people, would receive a year of free psychiatric help. Those that are unable to overcome their debilitating illness would be institutionalized within the best facilities in the United States.

Special attention would be given to developers, chemical and oil company executives, as well as key politicians that aided and abetted these cretins. They would be required to perform manual labor at the current minimum wage repairing the coastal wetlands and the assorted environmental damage they have caused. Their needs would be basic because they'd live in detention camps--modeled after Guantanemo or Abu Grav naturally--at the worksite. We are not a cruel people; these criminals would be eligible for parole in 2015.

Quite obviously, the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans would pay a parasite tax for the rebuilding of America.

All of this will of course require an organized political opposition and an informed citizenry. Oh well.... In the meantime we must be generous to those who have lost so much in the hurricane.

Anyone interested in an organization that rescues animals in disaster situations can go to www.noahswish.org/

This organization is called Noah's Wish.