djnoll’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  At last, a sign...

  I have been working on my doctorate, primarily in the area of civic participation and sustainable government.  I have been looking in all my research for a sign that globalization had finally run its course.  This article may be that sign.  It is apparent that the rising price of fuel was destined to have an impact on goods distribution.  We are beginning to see that now.  What we need now is a move within the US, by people like those who read Grist, to move towards more sustainable, localized production.  There is a video, THE TAKE, that tells of how local citizens in Latin America seized plants that had been shut down, retooled them, and started new businesses to sustain their communities.  It is time for US workers to consider forming alliances with community based groups to do much the same thing, in all areas from manufacturing to agriculture to retail.  And to do it in a sustainable manner.  If uneducated workers in Latin America can rebuild their local economies, there is absolutely no reason now for US workers to fail to do the same.  This article does not say it, but if we do not move to do this now, then what has happened so far in our economy will be only the tip of the iceberg.  I can guarantee it!On High fuel prices causing globalization to lose momentum posted 1 year, 2 months ago 8 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  And the Children shall lead us...

  I am working in the area of trying to get people to face up to the fact that if we are to have a sustainable future, we need to educate our children - the GenXers and GenYers - NOW.  While I applaud the interest of the college level students, the educational system needs to take this farther.  

  On my website - http://www.standanddeliveramerica.com - I have posted under the Articles heading two curricula that I have devised that could be implemented in any school system that would incorporate sustainability into the curriculum as part of the entire learning process, as well as through a junior college or online university program.  Education is the key to our futures, and we need to start teaching our children now about how to create an energy independent, sustainable future before we completely run out of time.  I have also posted a blog under Man and Nature as the first in a series addressing the affects of global warming and our need to reconnect with nature at any age as a way of finding the answers we seek.

  I applaud the universities mentioned in the article for leading the way in making these programs available.  Even Northern Arizona University with its Ponderosa Project and the ASU Sustainability School and Centr are working here in Arizona to create awareness and knowledge in this field, and the fact that our young people are so interested gives me some hope for the future.On Alternative School posted 2 years, 7 months ago 1 Response

• Click here to view comment in original post

  You are Partly Right and Partly Wrong

  This past Sunday I had a discussion with my father, a retired engineer who looks at the Earth as a geophysical machine that runs on energy generated at its core.  He, like the author of this piece, believes that global warming is just a naturally occuring event.  He is right as far as he goes, and that is where he and Al Gore meet.  What until our discussion he had refused to address is how a greenhouse works, but from a gardener's perspective the understanding is somewhat different, and hence the phrase "greenhouse effect"

  In a natural cycle the heat from the Earth's core does generate a significant percentage of the Earth's warmth and climate, ultimately dissipating int o the atmoshere.  CO2 does naturally occur in our atmosphere.  These two facts go back millions of year and are not in dispute.  This is where the human element enters the picture in the last 100 years, because we have affected the ability of the Earth's heat generation from dissipating into space.  Like a greenhouse that traps heat inside to warm plants and help them grow in an artificially created climate, the excessive CO2 and other greenhouse gases generated by man have created the walls of the "greenhouse" that holds in the Earth's life giving warmth.

  Our problem is though that unlike a greenhouse which can be manually opened and closed to moderate the effects of the trapped heat, we have created a shell that is encasing the Earth in such a way that the heat is trapped.  It is then magnified by the solar heat that would normally reach us as well.  In essence, you create a super-heater of the Earth's surface and its atmosphere.  The Earth, in its natural cycle, cannot then release the heat it generates the way it should and you get global warming.

  So the argument is partly right and partly wrong, but it is only when you understand how a greenhouse works do you see in terms that most non-scientific types can understand.  For that matter, even engineers when they understand how a greenhouse works begin to change their opinions as well.  My father may never be the same, now that he understands that he and Al Gore are not arguing apples and oranges, only seeds and fruit.On 'Global warming is part of a natural cycle'--This idea is one short step above appealing to magic posted 2 years, 10 months ago 39 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Reason tempered with passion and commitment

  As I read this posting and the ones that followed, I had to smile.  Yes, reasoned, empirical logic can often make a strong case for social change.  Many examples of this are included in this discussion, but in citing such examples as the women's movement or economic growth, there was also passion for the causes and commitment to the purpose that created the social change.  Yes, there was reasoned arguments for these changes - they made sense to the majority of the population, but it was the passion and commitment to see the battle through to its conclusion that made the social framework alter itself to accommodate the changes.  Without passion, any argument can be made for social change, but it will fall on deaf ears because no one will want to hear the argument.  For example, the arguments about climate change have been made by scientists for over 25 years, and yet no one paid attention to the experts, who were reasoned and balanced in their arguments.  However, when Al Gore makes a movie based on his passionate belief that this is important, even though he is not a scientist or any kind of expert, people listen and they begin to act.

  I am a strong believer in logic and reason.  I am a student (at age 54 so you understand I have life experience to support me) in Public Policy, and I have a life long interest in history.  So, I can safely say, that reason and logic and calm debate have done very little to change anything.  However, take the same facts and put passion and commitment behind them, talk with conviction and facts, and change can occur.  Part of the problem that the environmental movement has had over the years is that they have failed to understand that rhetoric can only take you so far, unless you can touch the hearts, as well as the minds of society, you cannot create change.  I know that the people who work for the various environmental groups are passionate about their efforts and work tirelessly to try to accomplish things, but they need to come together, pool their arguments and then with commitment and passion, talk to the hearts of American citizens, not just the heads.  Then you may actually see the changes begin to happen.On What kind of rhetoric creates social change? posted 2 years, 11 months ago 29 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Response to the Poll Question

  While the answer is quite simply yes, they should, the reason is perhaps more involved than just being more receptive to nature because of the ability to care for their families.

  I have recently been doing a great deal of research on the question of oil depletion, climate change, and agriculture.  The three are inextricably linked, and unless the question of how to preserve agriculture in a natural, organic state can be answered, now and quickly, the other two may be moot points.  There is currently a movement to relocalize not ony politics, but agricultural production so that communities once again have locally produced food available to them.  This is partly because of the need for healthier food, but also because of the need for a secure national food supply.  With a living wage that is above the poverty line, which no bill in Congress is setting, a more significant amount of money could be put by the average family into the producing of food for themselves, as well as paying for the locally produced food which may be more expensive than the industrially produced food.

  Further, by encouraging the family to grow part of their own food, like the Victory Gardens of WWII, they can offset some of the other higher priced foods that they could buy from local sources.  Since most families in America are two income families, there is nothing wrong with having the children be responsible for this garden.  Children who have worked in community gardens around this nation have been less likely to get into trouble than other children, so why not create co-operative neighborhood gardens where children can work together under the guidance of parents to create rather than destroy thier lives, and share in the responsiblity of helping to feed thier families.

  A basic living wage will help cover expenses, but only a healthy agricultural community that is based on organic, living principles on a national scale will help to feed this nation the way it should be fed.  A healthy agricultural community, whether in Los Angeles or rural Iowa, can help to address issues of cleaner air, water resource conservation, and oil dependency by limited transportation to market of production.  When you take the costs of excess water usage and transportation out of the food production equation as practiced by industrial agriculture, you reduce the cost of locally produced food by nearly half.  On that basis alone, a living wage can help a family pay for food locally produced.  

  So, yes, a living wage should be part of the argument, because with it the people can afford to feed their families, but not just because they are more receptive to nature, but because coupled with a movement to localize food production, they can afford to eat locally and better. On Eric Schlosser on America's food industry and his delicious new film posted 2 years, 11 months ago 22 Responses