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....
Friday, September 29, 2006
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Yedoma is Here
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.
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.
Monday, September 04, 2006
Cows, Corn, and Melting Ice
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.
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.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Tell Me Why
Have you heard of the branch of pure mathematics called topology? Up until a couple of days ago I had not. Topology is a branch of mathematics that deals with shapes. Different shapes can be deformed or reworked into one another. The topologists are interested in so called "closed" forms that have a fixed extent or limit.
After reading a general description, I'm still reasonably certain I have only the slightest grasp of what it means--certainly in a mathematical sense. But its relevance just might extend well beyond the abstruse world of higher math.
Topology is in the news because Grigory Perelman, a Russian mathematician, some three years ago, informed the world he'd solved this mathematical problem known among mathematicians as the Poincare conjecture. Then the Russian disappeared. The world's foremost mathematicians continued the Russian's work and now, three years later, have reached a "cautious optimism" regarding Perelman's conclusions. Many are now suggesting that not only is it a remarkable achievement in mathematics--but of human thought itself.
Dr. William Thurston of Cornell has said, "You don't see what you're seeing until you see it, but when you do see it, it lets you see many things." Thurston goes on to say that, "curiosity is tied in some way with intuition." For most of us non-mathematicians this easily sounds like obscure gobblygook, but just possibly there may be something else to consider....
That something else is the two words curiosity and intuition. Where do they come from? Why do some people appear to have more of it than others? Does one need curiosity before intuition takes place or might it be the other way around? Why or how did Albert Einstein for example, sitting in a trolley car in Vienna, come up with the idea that time itself depends on where the observer is? Was he merely bored as he traveled back and forth from his dull job at the patent office? And will the latest mathematical discoveries get us any closer to an understanding? Are you curious?
Will the rising cost of a barrel of oil--and the difficulty of having easy alternatives--stimulate new energy sources? Is it scarcity that will push and develop our curiosity and intuition? History is full of examples where shortages led to new inventions as well as new energy sources.
The writer Deborah Blum, in an article in The New York Times, remarked that President Bush's veto of the embryonic stem cell legislation follows a fairly consistent pattern of those that have opposed medical and scientific "progress" on religious and moral grounds.
In the 11th and 12th century the Christian church warned individuals that using medicine to treat illness indicated a "lack of faith." As recently as the 19th century cries of "Satanism" were shouted when doctors began using chloroform to reduce the pain of childbirth.
Religious benightedness and incurious rulers have always been with us. But dogged persistence followed by evidence and success more often than not triumphed over ignorance.
To what degree does a vibrant, creative society encourage curiosity and respect intuition? To what degree does it ultimately demand evidence? What will we learn next about the Poincare conjecture?
After reading a general description, I'm still reasonably certain I have only the slightest grasp of what it means--certainly in a mathematical sense. But its relevance just might extend well beyond the abstruse world of higher math.
Topology is in the news because Grigory Perelman, a Russian mathematician, some three years ago, informed the world he'd solved this mathematical problem known among mathematicians as the Poincare conjecture. Then the Russian disappeared. The world's foremost mathematicians continued the Russian's work and now, three years later, have reached a "cautious optimism" regarding Perelman's conclusions. Many are now suggesting that not only is it a remarkable achievement in mathematics--but of human thought itself.
Dr. William Thurston of Cornell has said, "You don't see what you're seeing until you see it, but when you do see it, it lets you see many things." Thurston goes on to say that, "curiosity is tied in some way with intuition." For most of us non-mathematicians this easily sounds like obscure gobblygook, but just possibly there may be something else to consider....
That something else is the two words curiosity and intuition. Where do they come from? Why do some people appear to have more of it than others? Does one need curiosity before intuition takes place or might it be the other way around? Why or how did Albert Einstein for example, sitting in a trolley car in Vienna, come up with the idea that time itself depends on where the observer is? Was he merely bored as he traveled back and forth from his dull job at the patent office? And will the latest mathematical discoveries get us any closer to an understanding? Are you curious?
Will the rising cost of a barrel of oil--and the difficulty of having easy alternatives--stimulate new energy sources? Is it scarcity that will push and develop our curiosity and intuition? History is full of examples where shortages led to new inventions as well as new energy sources.
The writer Deborah Blum, in an article in The New York Times, remarked that President Bush's veto of the embryonic stem cell legislation follows a fairly consistent pattern of those that have opposed medical and scientific "progress" on religious and moral grounds.
In the 11th and 12th century the Christian church warned individuals that using medicine to treat illness indicated a "lack of faith." As recently as the 19th century cries of "Satanism" were shouted when doctors began using chloroform to reduce the pain of childbirth.
Religious benightedness and incurious rulers have always been with us. But dogged persistence followed by evidence and success more often than not triumphed over ignorance.
To what degree does a vibrant, creative society encourage curiosity and respect intuition? To what degree does it ultimately demand evidence? What will we learn next about the Poincare conjecture?
Monday, August 07, 2006
Iron Age Fantasies
The most recent human obscenity, this time in Lebanon, again demonstrates that national borders have become almost irrelevant--certainly when it comes to global degradation.
The Israeli bombing of oil storage facilities and power plants has turned the Lebanon coastline into a black oil slick, which is apparently spreading to Syria, Turkey, Cyprus, and who knows where else. We know it will likely have disastrous consequences for marine life, but it will also impact areas within Lebanon and Israel, due to deforestation, habitat destruction, and air and water pollution. It may turn out to be a major environmental catastrophe in the eastern Mediterranean.
Some scientists now believe that China, in the not to distant future, may account for "a third" of California's air pollution. While China itself is well on its way to becoming an environmental disaster, it could, as well, drag the rest of the world with it. An atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington, after analyzing particulate matter (from Asia) at monitoring sites in Oregon said, "There is no place where you can put away your pollution anymore."
In the simplest of terms, even if the United States suddenly became the most environmentally enlightened nation on the planet, unrestrained growth in countries like China and India, with more than two billion inhabitants, could turn our planet into a nightmarish hell at the very least.
The option, however, is not to throw up our hands in despair or cling to some Iron Age fairy tales. There are no beautiful virgins waiting in the ether, nor did some Old Testament sociopath give some sand dunes to a particular group of people. The only "miracle" is this extraordinary planet we live on. We push even harder for global change. Earth is worth it.
The Israeli bombing of oil storage facilities and power plants has turned the Lebanon coastline into a black oil slick, which is apparently spreading to Syria, Turkey, Cyprus, and who knows where else. We know it will likely have disastrous consequences for marine life, but it will also impact areas within Lebanon and Israel, due to deforestation, habitat destruction, and air and water pollution. It may turn out to be a major environmental catastrophe in the eastern Mediterranean.
Some scientists now believe that China, in the not to distant future, may account for "a third" of California's air pollution. While China itself is well on its way to becoming an environmental disaster, it could, as well, drag the rest of the world with it. An atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington, after analyzing particulate matter (from Asia) at monitoring sites in Oregon said, "There is no place where you can put away your pollution anymore."
In the simplest of terms, even if the United States suddenly became the most environmentally enlightened nation on the planet, unrestrained growth in countries like China and India, with more than two billion inhabitants, could turn our planet into a nightmarish hell at the very least.
The option, however, is not to throw up our hands in despair or cling to some Iron Age fairy tales. There are no beautiful virgins waiting in the ether, nor did some Old Testament sociopath give some sand dunes to a particular group of people. The only "miracle" is this extraordinary planet we live on. We push even harder for global change. Earth is worth it.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
The Magic Bullet
Adapted from article first printed in Kansas City Star, 7/22/06, entitled "Corn No 'Magic Bullet' For Our Energy Crisis."
Henry Ford in 1925 said, "The fuel of the future is going to come from fruit like that sumac out by the road, or from apples, weeds, sawdust--almost anything."
The father of the mass-produced automobile was 81 years too early in his prediction, but it's now likely that "weeds" will play some part in fueling our vehicles.
But we should be extremely skeptical of the assorted snake-oil salesmen with their cure-all patent medicine. In the Midwest, the syrupy elixir is ethanol made from corn.
Biofuels, of which ethanol is the best known, are byproducts of once-living organisms, which could include such things as wood, elephant dung or grass. Today biofuels are essentially alcohols that come from crops like sugar cane, soybeans and corn.
Biofuels are "carbon-neutral," in theory. They don't supply significant amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, the main greenhouse gas contributing to global warming.
Corn as fuel is now being touted in the United States. From Wall Street investment firms to bloated agribusinesses, corn has become the latest energy traveling circus.
But like the wizard behind the curtain, much of the ethanol ballyhoo is smoke and mirrors. Some people, however, may become rich because of the public's gullibility and its apparent unwillingness to even consider a national energy and environmental policy.
We've got a lot of corn in America. In fact, corn-based fast foods and the numerous products that contain high fructose corn syrup have helped make America possibly the most obese nation in history. The problem is that corn may be one of the worst plants we could consider as a biofuel.
Although corn is heavily subsidized, courtesy of the American taxpayer, it also uses more synthetic fertilizer than any other crop. The fertilizer comes primarily from natural gas, and nitrogen runoffs cause immense damage to water supplies and aquatic life. Corn also uses a lot of pesticides, which are made from petroleum.
Atrazine, a highly poisonous herbicide--banned by the European Union--is applied in large amounts on American cornfields. The Environmental Protection Agency states it is the second-most-common pesticide in drinking wells.
And even before the corn gets near a distillation plant, it has already used one-third to one-half gallon of gasoline for every bushel of corn grown. More fossil fuel is used when the corn is actually distilled. Cheap, readily available fossil fuel is a rapidly vanishing delusion.
Of course, global corporations like Archer Daniels Midland are salivating at the prospect of turning all that corn into gold. ADM is the largest producer of ethanol (from corn) in the United States. Over the years this particular company has been found guilty of price fixing, charged with numerous violations of the Clean Air Act, and has had to pay out millions of dollars in fines and settlements. Perhaps most ironic of all is that ADM proposes to produce much of the ethanol in its coal-fired plants, one of the dirtiest forms of energy around.
Reducing our fossil fuel consumption is urgent and long overdue. The obvious first step is an authentic national conservation plan.
Biofuels will become just one of many possible energy alternatives. In the not-too-distant future we may be making ethanol from vegetable cellulose such as switchgrass, which would be far more efficient, less costly and less harmful to the environment than any corn ethanol.
A country with no conservation policy, anxious to find a quick fix for rural America, and guided by some obsolete cartoon capitalism will believe almost anything, even some fairy tale about a new "energy bullet."
Henry Ford in 1925 said, "The fuel of the future is going to come from fruit like that sumac out by the road, or from apples, weeds, sawdust--almost anything."
The father of the mass-produced automobile was 81 years too early in his prediction, but it's now likely that "weeds" will play some part in fueling our vehicles.
But we should be extremely skeptical of the assorted snake-oil salesmen with their cure-all patent medicine. In the Midwest, the syrupy elixir is ethanol made from corn.
Biofuels, of which ethanol is the best known, are byproducts of once-living organisms, which could include such things as wood, elephant dung or grass. Today biofuels are essentially alcohols that come from crops like sugar cane, soybeans and corn.
Biofuels are "carbon-neutral," in theory. They don't supply significant amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, the main greenhouse gas contributing to global warming.
Corn as fuel is now being touted in the United States. From Wall Street investment firms to bloated agribusinesses, corn has become the latest energy traveling circus.
But like the wizard behind the curtain, much of the ethanol ballyhoo is smoke and mirrors. Some people, however, may become rich because of the public's gullibility and its apparent unwillingness to even consider a national energy and environmental policy.
We've got a lot of corn in America. In fact, corn-based fast foods and the numerous products that contain high fructose corn syrup have helped make America possibly the most obese nation in history. The problem is that corn may be one of the worst plants we could consider as a biofuel.
Although corn is heavily subsidized, courtesy of the American taxpayer, it also uses more synthetic fertilizer than any other crop. The fertilizer comes primarily from natural gas, and nitrogen runoffs cause immense damage to water supplies and aquatic life. Corn also uses a lot of pesticides, which are made from petroleum.
Atrazine, a highly poisonous herbicide--banned by the European Union--is applied in large amounts on American cornfields. The Environmental Protection Agency states it is the second-most-common pesticide in drinking wells.
And even before the corn gets near a distillation plant, it has already used one-third to one-half gallon of gasoline for every bushel of corn grown. More fossil fuel is used when the corn is actually distilled. Cheap, readily available fossil fuel is a rapidly vanishing delusion.
Of course, global corporations like Archer Daniels Midland are salivating at the prospect of turning all that corn into gold. ADM is the largest producer of ethanol (from corn) in the United States. Over the years this particular company has been found guilty of price fixing, charged with numerous violations of the Clean Air Act, and has had to pay out millions of dollars in fines and settlements. Perhaps most ironic of all is that ADM proposes to produce much of the ethanol in its coal-fired plants, one of the dirtiest forms of energy around.
Reducing our fossil fuel consumption is urgent and long overdue. The obvious first step is an authentic national conservation plan.
Biofuels will become just one of many possible energy alternatives. In the not-too-distant future we may be making ethanol from vegetable cellulose such as switchgrass, which would be far more efficient, less costly and less harmful to the environment than any corn ethanol.
A country with no conservation policy, anxious to find a quick fix for rural America, and guided by some obsolete cartoon capitalism will believe almost anything, even some fairy tale about a new "energy bullet."
Friday, July 14, 2006
Bigger Body Count
This year the United States will have a population of 300,000,000. We have a net gain of 1 person every 11 seconds. The U.S. is now the fastest growing "developed" country in the world.
James Howard Kunstler's book The Long Emergency is worth reading. Kunstler's thesis is that cheap fossil fuel has made the modern world possible; it is the "platform" from which our rapid technological advances have occurred, including everything from democratic institutions to improved health care to discussions about what our existence means. And it all may be coming to an end. Cheap, readily available fossil fuel is an anomaly in human history.
In the end, according to Kunstler, we may get optimistically 200 years or so out of cheap fuel--and we've already used up about 150 years. We're running out of it because it's a finite resource, although we sometimes act as though it's not. Most important, there is nothing we know of today that's going to remotely replace it or make it possible to enjoy continued growth or increasing levels of prosperity. It's going to get pretty bleak, what Kunstler calls the "long emergency." Some will find Kunstler's thesis implausible and others on target. But most people will nevertheless find it disturbing....
We have more than 6 billion humans living on the planet right now, and our rapid population increase began at the start of the industrial revolution around 1800 and really took off in the early twentieth century. In the late eighteenth century we had approximately one billion inhabitants on Earth. This could once again become the upper limit of our sustainable population.
America is now the third most populous country in the world. We are by far the worst polluter on the planet, emitting nearly twice the carbon dioxide emissions as our closest competitor, China. We average some 1,300 gallons of water per day, per citizen, the highest rate in the world. We Americans individually generate hundreds of pounds of trash each year, with paper, plastics, and metals leading the way.
One in three teenage girls in the U.S. become pregnant, and more than 50% of Americans now live within 10 miles of polluted water. The current American government has essentially restricted international family planning funds to sexual abstinence policies because of the dysfunctional influence of Christian fundamentalism. And we haven't even talked about the growing environmental disaster that's occurring in China and to a lesser degree in India. These two countries have a combined population of more than two billion inhabitants.
Even with cheap, readily available fossil fuels, we've got a planet in acute trouble. What are we willing and able to do? What are we willing to give up--because those of us in the developed world will have to part with a great deal? How fast are we willing to do it? The options are vanishing fast.
James Howard Kunstler's book The Long Emergency is worth reading. Kunstler's thesis is that cheap fossil fuel has made the modern world possible; it is the "platform" from which our rapid technological advances have occurred, including everything from democratic institutions to improved health care to discussions about what our existence means. And it all may be coming to an end. Cheap, readily available fossil fuel is an anomaly in human history.
In the end, according to Kunstler, we may get optimistically 200 years or so out of cheap fuel--and we've already used up about 150 years. We're running out of it because it's a finite resource, although we sometimes act as though it's not. Most important, there is nothing we know of today that's going to remotely replace it or make it possible to enjoy continued growth or increasing levels of prosperity. It's going to get pretty bleak, what Kunstler calls the "long emergency." Some will find Kunstler's thesis implausible and others on target. But most people will nevertheless find it disturbing....
We have more than 6 billion humans living on the planet right now, and our rapid population increase began at the start of the industrial revolution around 1800 and really took off in the early twentieth century. In the late eighteenth century we had approximately one billion inhabitants on Earth. This could once again become the upper limit of our sustainable population.
America is now the third most populous country in the world. We are by far the worst polluter on the planet, emitting nearly twice the carbon dioxide emissions as our closest competitor, China. We average some 1,300 gallons of water per day, per citizen, the highest rate in the world. We Americans individually generate hundreds of pounds of trash each year, with paper, plastics, and metals leading the way.
One in three teenage girls in the U.S. become pregnant, and more than 50% of Americans now live within 10 miles of polluted water. The current American government has essentially restricted international family planning funds to sexual abstinence policies because of the dysfunctional influence of Christian fundamentalism. And we haven't even talked about the growing environmental disaster that's occurring in China and to a lesser degree in India. These two countries have a combined population of more than two billion inhabitants.
Even with cheap, readily available fossil fuels, we've got a planet in acute trouble. What are we willing and able to do? What are we willing to give up--because those of us in the developed world will have to part with a great deal? How fast are we willing to do it? The options are vanishing fast.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Changing the Footprint
Have you heard the name Wangari Maathai? That was the question Bob Ferguson put to me. I'd met Bob for the first time that morning on the tennis court, after which we got some coffee. Bob was a distributor with Shaklee (www.shaklee.net/ferguson), a health and wellness firm.
Dr. Wangari Maathai, the founder of the Greenbelt Movement in Kenya, became a Nobel Peace Laureate in 2004. The Shaklee Corporation donated $100,000 in order to help Maathai plant some one million trees in Kenya. In 2000 Shaklee had become the first organization to be certified "climate neutral" by the Climate Neutral Network (www.climateneutral.com)
More and more today we're hearing the term climate neutral, as well as calls for both individuals and organizations to reduce their environmental "footprint."
The phrase climate neutral refers to a company's product or service that has little or no effect on the earth's climate. In other words, emitting little or no greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, chloroflurocarbons, carbon monoxide and small amounts of other gases).
In order to get certified a company must first make "internal reductions" within its own organization and then invest in offsets to reduce the remaining greenhouse gas emissions. Tree planting would be considered one of many types of possible offsets because trees take in carbon dioxide.
Regardless of the reasons why a company might embark on climate neutral strategies, it is in fact occurring throughout the world, from carpet companies and hotel chains to aircraft engine manufacturers like Boeing and financial service organizations such as JPMorganChase.
But as many organizations are finding out, it is often easier to declare climate neutral strategies than it is to clearly quantify and measure results. For example, when a particular company interacts with a diverse group of firms or suppliers in order to create and produce a specific product or service, how is credit divided up?
Joel Makower and GreenBiz.com (www.greenbiz.com) have spent a good deal of time thinking and writing about climate neutral policies. Makower has pointed out that a world commodity market now exists for greenhouse gas emissions reduction. There's money in it--and the incentive for many an organization or investor to declare its climate neutral "worthiness."
In building an automobile, for example, how much credit does the aluminum industry receive when it improves existing technology or for that matter spends millions developing new technology, which ultimately ends up in new cars, making them lighter, thus causing carbon reductions? What about the automotive manufacturer? How do you quantify his credit for redesigning new cars, possibly making them less wind resistant and more fuel-efficient? What about government itself? To what degree do tougher regulatory standard drive the changes? Last but not least is the actual consumer. Does that person receive any credit for purchasing the particular car?
But if climate mitigation for the entire planet is a valued--and critical--objective, who should ultimately establish the overarching criteria and goal? Clearly a lot of bright individuals and farsighted organizations are now thinking about climate neutral ideas as well as implementing policies; but much is still missing, perhaps the most important component. The fact that there might be an enlightened company somewhere outside of Paris tells you one thing: One company outside of Paris has implemented some climate neutral policies.
According to the U.N. Climate Secretariat, carbon dioxide emissions went up to 15.1 billion tons in 2004 from 14.5 billion in 1990. The Greenland ice sheet, broad enough to cover an area the size of Mexico, is deteriorating faster than it was only a few years ago. How do we want to proceed? It strikes me as being somewhat more than a mere business school exercise.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I've ended up trying a few of Shaklee's products.
Dr. Wangari Maathai, the founder of the Greenbelt Movement in Kenya, became a Nobel Peace Laureate in 2004. The Shaklee Corporation donated $100,000 in order to help Maathai plant some one million trees in Kenya. In 2000 Shaklee had become the first organization to be certified "climate neutral" by the Climate Neutral Network (www.climateneutral.com)
More and more today we're hearing the term climate neutral, as well as calls for both individuals and organizations to reduce their environmental "footprint."
The phrase climate neutral refers to a company's product or service that has little or no effect on the earth's climate. In other words, emitting little or no greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, chloroflurocarbons, carbon monoxide and small amounts of other gases).
In order to get certified a company must first make "internal reductions" within its own organization and then invest in offsets to reduce the remaining greenhouse gas emissions. Tree planting would be considered one of many types of possible offsets because trees take in carbon dioxide.
Regardless of the reasons why a company might embark on climate neutral strategies, it is in fact occurring throughout the world, from carpet companies and hotel chains to aircraft engine manufacturers like Boeing and financial service organizations such as JPMorganChase.
But as many organizations are finding out, it is often easier to declare climate neutral strategies than it is to clearly quantify and measure results. For example, when a particular company interacts with a diverse group of firms or suppliers in order to create and produce a specific product or service, how is credit divided up?
Joel Makower and GreenBiz.com (www.greenbiz.com) have spent a good deal of time thinking and writing about climate neutral policies. Makower has pointed out that a world commodity market now exists for greenhouse gas emissions reduction. There's money in it--and the incentive for many an organization or investor to declare its climate neutral "worthiness."
In building an automobile, for example, how much credit does the aluminum industry receive when it improves existing technology or for that matter spends millions developing new technology, which ultimately ends up in new cars, making them lighter, thus causing carbon reductions? What about the automotive manufacturer? How do you quantify his credit for redesigning new cars, possibly making them less wind resistant and more fuel-efficient? What about government itself? To what degree do tougher regulatory standard drive the changes? Last but not least is the actual consumer. Does that person receive any credit for purchasing the particular car?
But if climate mitigation for the entire planet is a valued--and critical--objective, who should ultimately establish the overarching criteria and goal? Clearly a lot of bright individuals and farsighted organizations are now thinking about climate neutral ideas as well as implementing policies; but much is still missing, perhaps the most important component. The fact that there might be an enlightened company somewhere outside of Paris tells you one thing: One company outside of Paris has implemented some climate neutral policies.
According to the U.N. Climate Secretariat, carbon dioxide emissions went up to 15.1 billion tons in 2004 from 14.5 billion in 1990. The Greenland ice sheet, broad enough to cover an area the size of Mexico, is deteriorating faster than it was only a few years ago. How do we want to proceed? It strikes me as being somewhat more than a mere business school exercise.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I've ended up trying a few of Shaklee's products.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Gone Hiking
Heading off to the Pacific Northwest to do some hiking, gaze at some beautiful scenery, and perhaps visit a couple of national parks to see if there is any noticeable deterioration. Under this current American government budgets have been slashed and staff cuts have been made throughout our national parks system. Some national park bookstores are supposedly carrying biblical fairytales stating that the Earth is only six or seven thousand years old.
On June 8, 1906 President Theodore Roosevelt signed a law protecting the natural and cultural resources of the United States. The Antiquities Act, as it's known today, gives the President the authority to protect national landmarks. I suppose under this current American president we should be grateful we even have something like the Antiquities Act, to at least slow down human depredation. Developers and the fossil fuel industry are now eying these heretofore-protected areas.
Speaking of landmarks, pressure has been mounting from scientists to get the UN World Heritage Sites Committee to acknowledge that some of the world's most important sites have been damaged by climate change brought on by greenhouse gas emissions. Some of these sites include the great Barrier Reef in Australia, the Belize Barrier Reef, the Waterton-Glacier Park along the US and Canadian border, and the Husascaran National Park in Peru.
The signatories to the Heritage Sites agreement (including the U.S.) state that they will not damage listed sites. The petition brought by scientists to the UN, if successful, could have poor countries being able to sue richer countries for not doing more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's expected that the United States government will oppose this petition.
No one said it would be easy!
On June 8, 1906 President Theodore Roosevelt signed a law protecting the natural and cultural resources of the United States. The Antiquities Act, as it's known today, gives the President the authority to protect national landmarks. I suppose under this current American president we should be grateful we even have something like the Antiquities Act, to at least slow down human depredation. Developers and the fossil fuel industry are now eying these heretofore-protected areas.
Speaking of landmarks, pressure has been mounting from scientists to get the UN World Heritage Sites Committee to acknowledge that some of the world's most important sites have been damaged by climate change brought on by greenhouse gas emissions. Some of these sites include the great Barrier Reef in Australia, the Belize Barrier Reef, the Waterton-Glacier Park along the US and Canadian border, and the Husascaran National Park in Peru.
The signatories to the Heritage Sites agreement (including the U.S.) state that they will not damage listed sites. The petition brought by scientists to the UN, if successful, could have poor countries being able to sue richer countries for not doing more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's expected that the United States government will oppose this petition.
No one said it would be easy!
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Serious Economic Harm
What is the "environmental" health of Iraq right now? Does the question seem silly and irrelevant? After all, by watching T.V. newscasts and reading various accounts, Iraq appears to be a country residing in some inner circle of Dante's Inferno or straight out of the movie Apocalypse Now.
T.E. Lawrence, more commonly known as Lawrence of Arabia, said 86 years ago (referring to British occupation) that Iraq was "a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honor." Cicero, the Roman politician and philosopher, reminded his fellow citizens that, "to be ignorant of what happened before you were born is to be ever a child." Cicero was murdered not long after the Roman Republic collapsed.
I don't know. But I found myself wondering a few days ago, after another bomb had exploded in Baghdad, with all the smoke and gasoline fumes, how bad was asthma among Iraq's children? But if you're getting shot and blown up on a daily basis, asthma rates may not be very important. What about all those uranium-tipped shell casings lying around. Is that harmful to your health?
I even found myself thinking about people's pets. Are there many anymore? Do they just shoot dogs wandering in the streets? After all, they could be carrying rabies. But why would we care about other species? We don't seem especially interested in our own. Then there's deforestation, water pollution, destruction of flora and fauna....
And what about the man-child playing President of the United States? Back in 2001 George Bush stated that the U.S. could under no circumstances support the Kyoto Protocol, a tentative step in addressing global warming. It would cause "serious harm" to the American economy. It would cost good paying American jobs he told us. What's the world's worst polluter to do? Simply put Kyoto would cost to much money. After all, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, heavily funded by Exxon, called global warming junk science or words to that effect.
Back in 2000 a figure of $325 billion was used, as the amount of money the U.S. would have to spend over many decades to be in compliance with the Kyoto Protocol.
Bush estimated that--before the invasion--the cost of the Iraq war would be about $50 billion, not that much for the world's most powerful country. At the present time the war has actually cost the United States more than $300 billion. If we include the estimated financial cost to Iraq and to the other "coalition" countries, the total world cost of the Iraq war is some $500 billion.
The Iraq war is costing the United states somewhere around $4 billion every month. We may reach a trillion dollars before it's all over. But climate experts now think that the goals of Kyoto need to be far more demanding and stringent if we are to slow down global warming. So perhaps spending all that money to kill all those terrorists in Iraq has turned out to be the right thing. Do you think so?
Anyone interested in assorted financial costs of the Iraq War and the Kyoto Protocol can go to Climate Ark at www.climateark.org and Information Clearinghouse News at www.informationclearinghouse.info
T.E. Lawrence, more commonly known as Lawrence of Arabia, said 86 years ago (referring to British occupation) that Iraq was "a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honor." Cicero, the Roman politician and philosopher, reminded his fellow citizens that, "to be ignorant of what happened before you were born is to be ever a child." Cicero was murdered not long after the Roman Republic collapsed.
I don't know. But I found myself wondering a few days ago, after another bomb had exploded in Baghdad, with all the smoke and gasoline fumes, how bad was asthma among Iraq's children? But if you're getting shot and blown up on a daily basis, asthma rates may not be very important. What about all those uranium-tipped shell casings lying around. Is that harmful to your health?
I even found myself thinking about people's pets. Are there many anymore? Do they just shoot dogs wandering in the streets? After all, they could be carrying rabies. But why would we care about other species? We don't seem especially interested in our own. Then there's deforestation, water pollution, destruction of flora and fauna....
And what about the man-child playing President of the United States? Back in 2001 George Bush stated that the U.S. could under no circumstances support the Kyoto Protocol, a tentative step in addressing global warming. It would cause "serious harm" to the American economy. It would cost good paying American jobs he told us. What's the world's worst polluter to do? Simply put Kyoto would cost to much money. After all, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, heavily funded by Exxon, called global warming junk science or words to that effect.
Back in 2000 a figure of $325 billion was used, as the amount of money the U.S. would have to spend over many decades to be in compliance with the Kyoto Protocol.
Bush estimated that--before the invasion--the cost of the Iraq war would be about $50 billion, not that much for the world's most powerful country. At the present time the war has actually cost the United States more than $300 billion. If we include the estimated financial cost to Iraq and to the other "coalition" countries, the total world cost of the Iraq war is some $500 billion.
The Iraq war is costing the United states somewhere around $4 billion every month. We may reach a trillion dollars before it's all over. But climate experts now think that the goals of Kyoto need to be far more demanding and stringent if we are to slow down global warming. So perhaps spending all that money to kill all those terrorists in Iraq has turned out to be the right thing. Do you think so?
Anyone interested in assorted financial costs of the Iraq War and the Kyoto Protocol can go to Climate Ark at www.climateark.org and Information Clearinghouse News at www.informationclearinghouse.info
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Cheap-Cheaper-Cheapest
The Nukak-Maku Indians, who have been living an essentially Stone Age existence forever, wandered out of the Amazon jungle recently and stated that they wanted to become part of the "modern world." No one at the present knows precisely why these indigenous people have now decided to enter a world they know absolutely nothing about.
In the United States millions of "illegal" immigrants (overwhelmingly from Mexico) are crossing the southern border of the U.S. No one knows how many are actually in the country. The numbers range from some 11 million to over 20 million.
Some two or three years ago, as a member of the Sierra Club, I received my ballot to vote for the new Board of Directors. At that time the contentious issue centered on immigration and the expressed belief on the part of some board nominees that environmental deterioration would occur with the flood of people crossing our borders. The worry for many of us was that the Sierra Club might be taken over by anti-immigrant bigots.
I, along with the clear majority of the Sierra Club, considered the views of these folks to be parochial and with more than a slight tinge of racism. My views have since changed, but not totally.
The word "cheap" has seemingly become the inspirational, all-purpose utterance for global capitalism and the developed world in general. As well, it is also the mantra for aspiring countries like China and India. Cheap (coupled with rising population) is now pushing us faster toward the destruction of finite natural resources throughout the planet. Cheap is the instrument for the "outsourcing" of far too many of us. Cheap is searching for workers everywhere on this planet who'll work for less and less and ask few questions. But cheap will also benefit a few of us--in the short run, a "run" that will indeed be, I think, much shorter than we think.
Why would a rational, well-run country, with an informed, well educated, and honest citizenry want millions upon millions of the poor and the illiterate crashing its borders? The answer is it wouldn't.
The problem is that the above description does not apply to the United States at the moment. America is not at the present time a rational, well run country. Neither is its citizenry well informed or well educated by almost any definition of a supposedly developed nation. We may actually be in the process of un-developing.
There may, however, be a "so-what" question in this entire discussion of immigration and the movement of people throughout the world. It may be that the diminution of nation-state sovereignty is rapidly becoming the reality. In other words, the state--any state--might not be able to preserve its borders for a variety of reasons. The term open source warfare, referring to increasingly powerful stateless organizations and groups within and outside of a particular country, may now be able to compete with the nation-state, and ultimately take control of it directly or indirectly. Anyone interested in a thought-provoking view of "open source" change should certainly begin with the web site Global Guerrillas published by John Robb.
But back to cheap, should we not consider the possibility that the Nukak-Maku Indians could end up being the cheapest workers of all, thus displacing workers from Colombia, who could then cross the Mexican-American border, and then displace lower income American citizens. The cost of goods at Wall Mart would continue to drop ... until of course they move their entire operation to China.
As the Nukak-Maku Indians know nothing of money or the "civilized" world, they could be taught some basic tasks and be paid in colored trinkets. This would reduce labor costs further, excite the financial markets, and make the few even richer ... for a short while. Did you buy "cheap" today?
In the United States millions of "illegal" immigrants (overwhelmingly from Mexico) are crossing the southern border of the U.S. No one knows how many are actually in the country. The numbers range from some 11 million to over 20 million.
Some two or three years ago, as a member of the Sierra Club, I received my ballot to vote for the new Board of Directors. At that time the contentious issue centered on immigration and the expressed belief on the part of some board nominees that environmental deterioration would occur with the flood of people crossing our borders. The worry for many of us was that the Sierra Club might be taken over by anti-immigrant bigots.
I, along with the clear majority of the Sierra Club, considered the views of these folks to be parochial and with more than a slight tinge of racism. My views have since changed, but not totally.
The word "cheap" has seemingly become the inspirational, all-purpose utterance for global capitalism and the developed world in general. As well, it is also the mantra for aspiring countries like China and India. Cheap (coupled with rising population) is now pushing us faster toward the destruction of finite natural resources throughout the planet. Cheap is the instrument for the "outsourcing" of far too many of us. Cheap is searching for workers everywhere on this planet who'll work for less and less and ask few questions. But cheap will also benefit a few of us--in the short run, a "run" that will indeed be, I think, much shorter than we think.
Why would a rational, well-run country, with an informed, well educated, and honest citizenry want millions upon millions of the poor and the illiterate crashing its borders? The answer is it wouldn't.
The problem is that the above description does not apply to the United States at the moment. America is not at the present time a rational, well run country. Neither is its citizenry well informed or well educated by almost any definition of a supposedly developed nation. We may actually be in the process of un-developing.
There may, however, be a "so-what" question in this entire discussion of immigration and the movement of people throughout the world. It may be that the diminution of nation-state sovereignty is rapidly becoming the reality. In other words, the state--any state--might not be able to preserve its borders for a variety of reasons. The term open source warfare, referring to increasingly powerful stateless organizations and groups within and outside of a particular country, may now be able to compete with the nation-state, and ultimately take control of it directly or indirectly. Anyone interested in a thought-provoking view of "open source" change should certainly begin with the web site Global Guerrillas published by John Robb.
But back to cheap, should we not consider the possibility that the Nukak-Maku Indians could end up being the cheapest workers of all, thus displacing workers from Colombia, who could then cross the Mexican-American border, and then displace lower income American citizens. The cost of goods at Wall Mart would continue to drop ... until of course they move their entire operation to China.
As the Nukak-Maku Indians know nothing of money or the "civilized" world, they could be taught some basic tasks and be paid in colored trinkets. This would reduce labor costs further, excite the financial markets, and make the few even richer ... for a short while. Did you buy "cheap" today?
Sunday, April 30, 2006
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.
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.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
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.
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.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
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?
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?
Saturday, March 25, 2006
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.
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.
Friday, March 10, 2006
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
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.
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.
Monday, January 30, 2006
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.
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.
Friday, January 13, 2006
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 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.
Monday, January 02, 2006
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.
Sunday, December 18, 2005
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
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
Saturday, December 10, 2005
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
Saturday, December 03, 2005
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
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
Friday, November 25, 2005
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
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
Sunday, November 13, 2005
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?
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?
Saturday, October 29, 2005
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?
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?
Saturday, October 08, 2005
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.
Saturday, October 01, 2005
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)