Earth Alert

Save the Whales...Again

2010-06-18T09:41:00.000-07:00

Speak Up for Whales!

Earlier this spring, we received news that the Obama Administration is willing to send a delegation to the International Whaling commission meeting next month with instructions to agree to a compromise. The compromise allows for increased quotas of whaling of some whale species in return for the closing of some existing loopholes.

The news of the compromise took marine mammal activists by surprise. After all, we’d achieved a moratorium on whaling way back in 1986. The news is like a serial axe murderer coming back from the dead and beginning a new round of terrorism. To say it’s aggravating to have to revisit this issue is an understatement, because I know that the majority of people are opposed to whaling. And it’s surprising, too, that it’s coming from the current Administration, because one would think that Obama, being from Hawaii, would be very much into whales.

But once the shock subsided, the answer is clear. We cannot acquiesce on the question of the whales because it would be a way to make nice with our political buddies—Norway, Iceland and Japan.

It doesn’t matter what countries are engaging in whaling. It’s just plain wrong. There is no culture on this planet that is depending on whale meat for survival. In fact, in an article that appeared in The New York Times on Sunday, May 16, 2010, came the revelation that as a whole, the eating of whalemeat was never the national tradition in Japan we were told it was. It was only in a few coastal locations—where coastal whaling took place—where people ate whalemeat. The food source was implemented nationwide in Japan after WWII. Now, the percentages of Japanese who eat whale are tiny, and the purpose of the government-supported programs seem to be a political decision to a) preserve some cushy bureaucratic jobs, and b) because the Japanese resent our “Western Imperialism” for meddling in their culture.

I don’t regard the evolution of consciousness as “Western Imperialism.” From whatever country in the world, if we do not bear witness against what we have evolved to see as wrong, then what have we become? Certainly we’re no longer creatures made in the image of the Divine.

So how does one say graciously, “Give it up, Japan! It’s time to move on!?” Plainly. That’s how.

And what’s the point of compromising for the unenforceable, because the proposed compromise would depend on the whaling nations’ voluntary compliance, as this no equivalent of United Nations’ forces on the high seas. It’s just the fox guarding the henhouse. So we easily agree to the compromise, and lose the moral high ground, and the same folks who have been killing whales all along would just keep killing them. No loopholes would be closed.

We must continue to state what is important to us. In the 70s we saw the establishment of the Endangered Species Act. Though the Bush Administration tried to abolish it recently, it has remained and it acknowledges the rights of other species to exist, and our recognition that the planet is diminished if we do not protect other species and the habitats on which they depend.

We don’t usually think of history as being shaped by silence, but, as English philosopher Edmund Burke said, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ So let not complacency rule the day with regard to these magnificent creatures of the sea.

“The price of liberty is eternal vigilance,” is written large across the top of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC. We can add that eternal vigilance will be the price of all forms of environmental and species protection in a world marked by over-population and rapacious economic interests.

Those who missed the opportunity to sign petitions at those demonstrations can still engage by emailing the White House (www.whitehouse.gov) or telephoning (202-456-1111) and simply saying, “I oppose whaling.”

Time to get past "Getting and Spending."

2009-02-24T07:38:00.000-08:00

In 1798, the English poet William Wordsworth published the poem entitled "The World is Too Much With Us" that begins:

The world is too much with us; late and soon,
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers;

How prescient Wordsworth's words are to our economic crisis. "Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers." Does that not describe what has happened to the United States over the past couple decades, as we devolved from the great post-WWII industrial power to one whose primary worldwide role is to buy the "stuff" that every other nation manufactures?

The third and fourth lines of the poem continue:

Little we see in Nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!

Wordsworth spoke collectively about his society, and ours, in saying "Little we see in Nature that is ours." In modern phraseology, we might say that as a society, we don't identify with Nature. "We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!" As a society, instead of recognizing that our own human existence depends on Nature, i.e. that it is at the heart of our existence, we instead exploit Nature carelessly and thoughtlessly, with the expansion of materialism well described as a "sordid boon." A boon" is defined as "a thing that is helpful or beneficial."

Any one who doubts that Nature makes human existence possible has failed to think about it. From the trees that convert carbon dioxide to create the oxygen we breathe, and the wood with which we build, to the fuels derived from ancient forests, from the rains and snows that create provide water, to the bacteria and worms that are constantly at work to create soil that grows our food, to the bees and insects that pollinate to grow the food we eat, everything that sustains us physically comes from Nature.

Indigenous cultures recognize their interdependence with Nature, but Western cultures, to the extent they have done so, have only recognized it in the past 200 years, beginning with the transcendental and environmental movements that create a voice for Nature. Can we attribute our Western, and now worldwide materialism to the belief expressed in Genesis Chapter 1, Verse 28 (King James version):

And God blessed them, and God said unto them Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth, upon the earth.

Or perhaps it's the Cartesian legacy, "I think, therefore I am." But without a body, do I exist? And can the body exist without the support of Nature? Many of us now have our heads in cyberspace, but not yet being angelic, our feet are still rooted in Earth.

And so now it's become a vicious circle. How many of us grow our own food? How many of us weave our own cloth and make our own clothing? How many of us create our own warmth from firewood or peat? No one I know.

But we have begun the creation of an economic system that is less destructive to the environment and evolves past gross consumption. There are now the organic and "slow food" movements, more and more useful and attractive products made from recycled and renewable materials and the development of renewable energy is now exploding. And each of us has the opportunity to be more conscious in the way we live our day-to-day lives. We can take our cloth bags to the grocery store, bring our own cup for coffee, buy at thrift stores, recycle EVERYTHING we possibly can and buy recycled whenever possible. This can even have economic benefits for us as individuals, especially as we plant a garden, weatherize our homes to reduce energy consumption, walk, ride a bike or take a bus, save and plan to buy a hybrid car or solar panels. And I'll bet that many of you already have other things you do that also are designed to save energy and help create a better world than the one we find ourselves in today.

Many things are within our power as individual consumers, and in doing these, we reinforce existing trends that can, in time, redefine our country's overall role on the planet from thoughtless to thoughtful consumerism. Our marketplace determines what everyone else in the world makes. Let us then collectively demand, recycled, efficient, organic low-impact products. Are they more expensive? Not if you calculate in saving the planet, and a new version of the American economy, for your children.

Common Cents Approach to Energy Policy

2008-10-21T12:55:00.000-07:00

I’m looking forward to your comments on important environmental issues and society’s impact on them. The effects of socialization and the habits fostered by groups around us are well known. Does meaningful change start with changes in our individual lifestyles, changes in the laws that govern us, external changes in supply and demand or a combination of all three?

I also look forward to reading your comments on the energy proposals of our presidential candidates. Please read mine below regarding different approaches to our energy crisis and what I believe each option’s impacts will be for the planet, as well as its potential for rapid implementation and job creation.

A U.S. energy policy that balances present and future needs must be feasible and affordable in the short term, while rapidly reducing carbon emissions, which would also cut dependence on foreign fuels and improve the balance of trade. It will create many “green” jobs, from installing weather-stripping to high-level research positions and distributed ownership of energy generation systems. It will improve states’ self-determination.

This energy smorgasbord will use the same mechanisms of federal assistance previously provided to the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries. However, the new energy policy must powerfully override these industries’ vested interests when they do not demonstrate long- and short-term financial and environmental benefits.

Though we have vast coal reserves, coal-burning generating plants are unacceptable sources of carbon dioxide. In northwest New Mexico, activists are battling to prevent another coal-burning plant, which would provide electricity to several states, while benefiting its investors, and providing some local jobs. However, it would offset all other efforts in the state to reduce carbon emissions. How can the U.S. influence China to reduce its use of coal-generated energy if the U.S. does not curtail its own? While “clean coal” has become a buzzword, large-scale carbon sequestration projects have not been successfully tested and present major safety and liability issues. In the short-term, “clean” coal does not exist and dirty coal continues to cook the planet.

Let’s consider nuclear power, which can create immense amounts of power from one location without greenhouse gases. But there are huge risks, including the health of uranium miners, and dangers to communities from radioactive mine tailings may contaminate water supplies. Shall we blithely create risk to future generations from nuclear waste that must be transported and stored with passionate caution for tens of thousands of years? There is also the risk of highly visible terrorism targets and the potential for a meltdown. Nuclear power’s financial benefits accrue largely to utilities and nuclear plant builders, such as GE. After construction, few employees benefit. Plus, these plants are expensive (say $10 billion apiece) and construction should not be rushed. Nuclear power has undeniable liabilities, and is neither an immediate nor inexpensive solution.

On the other hand, wind and solar power are finally economically feasible, have no carbon emissions, and few environmental risks compared to nuclear. They can create widespread ownership of power generation. These industries’ primary problem is lack of capital and political clout, which they need to ramp up more quickly. Otherwise, their viability and safety have now been established. They also have the potential to create large numbers of jobs.

Research on biofuels now reveals the potential of non-food feedstocks for creation of ethanol with easy-to-grow non-food “crops” such as algae and switchgrass. These biofuels can be ramped up even more quickly, with only minor environmental impacts, and can also create jobs nationwide in the fuels’ growing and processing. By blending biofuels with gasoline in current vehicles, dependence on foreign fossil fuels can be reduced, as well as greenhouse gas emissions. The combination of rapid ramp-up and minimal environmental consequence should make biofuels a high national energy priority.

The question of offshore oil drilling’s potential, perhaps the most controversial of current energy options, has been manipulated to present it as a viable short term option. Permitting and construction of new oil platforms requires years and safety precautions should not be circumvented. Although political opposition to offshore drilling has softened, that does not make it a short term solution, nor would offshore oil development reduce green house gases. Finally, oil spills and accidents do happen with impacts on beaches, tourism, fishing and wildlife habitat. The damage to local and regional economies can be immense, while the number of jobs created by offshore oil drilling is low.

The greatest area of short term energy “creation” is energy conservation. It is the easiest to implement, and with incentives from state and federal government, could create a huge number of jobs rapidly. Fully 50 percent of U.S. energy use is in buildings. Every building in the U.S. should be weatherized. It would revitalize the construction trades, increase real estate values, and could dramatically reduce our use of heating oil and natural gas. It’s the smartest, safest and fastest way to address our energy crisis while new technologies and other solutions are implemented.

Though the two presidential candidates’ energy policies include many of these components, they’re both offering false hope with regard to “clean” coal, and McCain’s emphasis on nuclear power benefits nuclear power companies at the expense of future generations. And offshore oil drilling? As long as it’s a state’s decision, I think Californians will make wiser decisions than the federal government.

Backing Away from Big Oil

2008-07-17T14:47:00.000-07:00

They say the human species’ great natural advantage is the ability to adapt. I’ve decided to adapt and tell Big Oil where it can go.

I’ve committed to implementing a seven-year plan toward independence from single occupancy of gasoline-fueled vehicles. It’s very simple: I will start this year by arranging my life so that one day a week, I do not drive a conventional car by myself. Next year, it will be two days a week. The following year, three days a week, and so on.

I’ve experimented with “green” lifestyle for decades. But the car thing has been difficult as I haven’t had the bucks to buy a hybrid car. And relying solely on public transportation is only realistically possible in a few select cities in the U.S.

Part of my motivation in implementing this plan is to do my part to slow global warming. But a much larger part is because I am so angry at Congress, Detroit and the oil companies for failing to make steady progress on the CAFÉ standards for fuel efficiency. A person doesn’t have to be a genius to understand that fossil fuel resources are finite. The fact that oil production would one day peak has been known since the 50s.

And now the public is whining about high gas prices. I am sympathetic to all the unfortunate homeowners who bought the American Dream in the form of big houses in the ‘burbs, and SUVs for commuting. I’m sympathetic because their leaders should have provided more leadership. Political leadership has again proven to be an oxymoron.

Europeans have been paying a great deal more for gas for decades. They don’t subsidize oil companies. Instead they subsidize health care, education and public transportation. Do I think the American public could endorse similar policies? Only if it gets over its sense of entitlement that because we’ve long squandered a disproportionate share of the world’s resources, we should be able to continue to do so indefinitely. World population has doubled in the past fifty years. It seems like the smart thing to do is share resources, not fight over them.

But without a practical plan, my anger is only hard on me. This simple plan provides a manageable way to harness that energy. In year one, all I have to do is rearrange my schedule so that one day a week, I don’t drive. (By my rules, it doesn’t have to be the same day each week.) That gives me a whole year to figure out how I’m going to manage to stay out of the car two days a week next year. In the meantime, I’ll start testing the bus system.

A year is also long enough to build the strength and confidence to ride my bike more often. Bike riding requires a different wardrobe and carrying less stuff around. But in a year, I should be able to eliminate stashes of makeup, pens and excessive paperwork. I’ll find a lightweight notebook computer. I can learn to coordinate the bike and bus routines. It looks cool to see people ride to a bus stop, plunk the bike on the rack in front and then climb in the bus. Soon I’ll be one of them.

Another thing that can happen in a year is to figure out what errands to eliminate. Maybe I’ll buy a little photocopy machine ending trips to the copy shop. Maybe I’ll start buying postage online and have the post man pick up packages, as the post office now advertises. I could plan two weeks of meals at a time and go food shopping half as often and coordinate with a friend to shop together, or carpool to meetings.

If need be, seven years is long enough to plan and implement major life changes—such as a change in occupation or residence—to become less reliant on cars. It’s also long enough to save money to purchase a different kind of vehicle. If I can’t afford a new hybrid or electric within seven years, there should be more used ones available.

They say that within a seven year period, every cell in the body has been renewed and we each are, essentially, a totally new person. Since, in the end, I am the only person I can change, I commit to becoming a different transportation consumer in that time. Habits may be difficult to change. But changing them is not impossible. I’ll be blogging about this personal evolution here and welcome your input on how to plop that bike smoothly on the bus bike rack.

> COMMENT ON THIS POST