Comments jdhlax has made

Corporate Point Of View

The New York times is a major part of corporate America, and it endorsed two corporate candidates.  'Nuff said.On NYT endorses Clinton and McCain, notes McCain's climate advocacy posted 1 year, 10 months ago 2 Responses

Good Bye

So, it's OK for jerks like Freddy Backcut to call me extremist -- because my priorty is the Earth and all life on it -- but it's not OK to question the motives of a person who works for an agency that acts as an enemy of the Earth?  Guess what Dave, motives are an important aspect of a person's behavior and questioning them is completely legitimate!  That said, I'm not going to argue with a person who has authority on a website, so I guess my time on this site is at an end.

Good bye to everyone.  With most, it's been interesting and provacative, even where we disagree.  My final words are, "Earth First!  Humans, quit acting like a cancerous tumor on the planet or get the hell off!

Jeff Hoffman

Just Another Industry Scam

Not only would putting solar collectors in space to beam energy back to Earth be highly inefficient, it would also be very environmentally destructive.  First, rockets consume and burn huge amounts of fuel and are extremely loud.  That's several types of major environmental harms right there.  Second, and possibly even worse, like radioactivity, microwave energy is electromagnetic radiation, which is harmful in any amount, as is now being proven about cell phones and their broadcast antennas.  Where is Mr. Browning's proof for the ludicrous claim that these beams would be "weak, pollution-free, [and] environmentally safe"?

Jeff Hoffman

Effectiveness Of Lies

The PR industry and Nazi propagandists figured out decades ago that lies are quite effective, even if uncovered, because people will remember the lie more than a retraction.  Of course, if the media were severely punished for publishing lies -- say, their profit for the month were forfeited -- and were forced to print retractions for twice as long and twice as prominently as the lies, these lies obviously wouldn't be anywhere near as big a problem.  Allowing these types of lies to be published, especially without any repurcussions, is a perfect example of freedom of speech being taken way too far.

Jeff Hoffman

Natural Process?

Publisher's Weekly should stick to what it knows, natural processes obviously not part of that knowledge.  There's nothing natural about industrial or even agricultural society, or about human overpopulation, so there's nothing natural about sprawl.

Jeff Hoffman

Real Life v. Museum Pieces

Caniscandida,
I'm not clear what you're asking.  Don't assume I watch TV, I generally don't, and I have no idea who David DeGrazia is.

Animals living in zoos have nothing to do with animals in the wild.  The only legitimate reason for the existence of zoos is to preserve species until we can restore their habitats and release them back into the wild.

Re shooting and collaring/caging animals, except for the reason stated above, I'm totally against this.  Even for this reason, as I stated in my last post, this type of mistreatment of wild animals is almost always unecessary.  First, animals can be tracked, which was how these types of studies were done before all the high tech crap was invented.  Second, all we have to do is stop killing them, destroying their habitat, and polluting the Earth, and they'll be fine.  The purpose of these studies is to determine how much we can destroy the Earth before we do harm to species.  Not a very good premise.

Jeff Hoffman

"Hubris"

Kaela,
You're correct that we have no foundation upon which to discuss this due to our extremely different viewpoints.

However, the dictionary definition of "hubris" is "overbearing pride" or "excessive pride."  What I meant was that you, along with a large majority of humans, have an vastly overblown pride in the human race.  My post did not exhibit any pride, just embarassment and disgust at this attitude of my fellow humans.

I have no intention of making this personal, both because I hate that kind of thing, and because it takes attention away from the real issues.  I did not mean to single you out, as much as I hate HLS and anything like it.

Jeff Hoffman

Coastal Buffers & Wetlands

There should be absolutely no development immdiately along the coast.  These areas are wetlands and are completely destroyed by "development."  That was one of the problems in New Orleans: developers destroyed wetlands by building levies, which kept out water that should be there.  When the levies burst, the "developments" were destroyed.

Instead, we need to save all wetlands.  There is only a small percentage of the wetlands that existed when Eurpeans invaded left.  Any development that requires levies should be nixed.

Jeff Hoffman

Problems With Mass Transit

The primary, fundamental reason that people resist taking public transit instead of driving is that it takes longer (gasp!) and requires some physical effort (double gasp!).  A government-mandated shorter work week, like they have in France, would go a long way toward getting people on public transit, because they wouldn't be so short on time due to working long hours.

However, Cyclelicious is correct about the lack of reliability of mass transit.  It's more likely to be late because of mass transit than because of a traffic backup on the highway, because the oil/car/tire company lackies that run the government spend fortunes on roads but totally insufficient amounts on public transit.  When I was kid in Chicago, the El trains were far more reliable than BART trains are today in the SF Bay Area.  We should all urge our legislators and other representatives to spend a lot more on public transit and quit spending money on environmentally devastatin roads and car travel.

Jeff Hoffman

Males Just Don't Get It

Saying that we should not generally kill anything we don't eat and that unrestricted abortions should be available on demand is not a contradiction.  Until a fetus is born into a baby, it's part of the woman's body.  PERIOD!!!

Jeff Hoffman

Green Farm Bill

1. Outlaw all pesticides;

2. Outlaw all genetically engineered food;

3. Prohibit all exports.  All food should be sold locally;

4. Break up large farms so that all farms are small and owner-operated.  No landlord or absentee farmers!;

5. Prohibit CAFOs and otherwise overly large animal farms that cause environmental problems due to their size;

6. Subsidize farmers so that they're guaranteed a decent living; and

7. Require that all crops are ecologically appropriate for the area in which they're grown.  This would remove the need for massive water removals from natural bodies of water, which are very environmentally destructive.

Jeff Hoffman

I Second The Prime Directive Motion

And people wonder why some of us are misanthropic!

Jeff Hoffman

The Obvious Connection

Roger,
The addition of massive amounts of greenhouse gasses to our atmosphere has cause the temperatures of large bodies of water to rise.  This warmer water causes, among other things, more intense hurricanes.  What don't you get/am I missing here?

Jeff Hoffman

Constitutional Failure

Setting up a website identifying companies that support animal testing should be fully protected speech under the First Amendment.  While misguided and/or corrupt legislators have always tried to ignore the Bill of Rights in order to further their goals, the courts used to provide a safety net.  Since 911, the courts have become dishonest and/or cowardly, and now refuse to recognize the Bill of Rights.

Osama bin Laden and his ilk have won.  Whatever positive traits this country once had, such as freedom of political speech and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, are now gone.

As an aside, the idea of the website was totally right on.  How dare anyone torture animals for any reason!

Jeff Hoffman

Livestock & Wolves

Yes caniscandida, wolves sometimes do kill livestock.  Because cattle are not native, they are not wolves' natural prey, but some wolves get a taste for them after eating ones they find dead.  This is, of course, the fault of the ranchers, who should be dealing with dead livestock instead of leaving it for wolves to find and get accustomed to eating.

More fundamentally, wolves are native animals and should be given priority.  So what if wolves kill some cattle or sheep?  It should be a risk of the cattle and sheep business in the west, and those who don't want to accept that risk can get out.  The land would be much better off if they left, anyway.

Jeff Hoffman

Understanding The Opposite Side

Selfish and self centered people who don't look past the present are easy to understand, because we all come from that place as kids.  Unfortunately, many people never grow up, but they're still allowed to make adult decisions.  One major group of myopic people who don't look past next week's profits are business people.  (My source for this is a former economist for U.S. Steel.)  What short term desires of these people could we appeal to that would create a good result for the Earth?  Things like a healthy and clean environment don't seem to be working.

Jeff Hoffman

U.S.F.S. Lies

And why should we believe these guys, anyway?
http://lowbagger.org/liesassoff.htmlOn It's time for conservationists to collaborate with an agency they've long demonized posted 3 years, 8 months ago 103 Responses

Can't Agree

Atreyger,
I think that your position is nothing but a rationalization of a totally selfish attitude.

Jeff Hoffman

Death Of Luna

This tragedy highlights one of the many serious harms caused by power boats.  Even if one considers motor vehicles to be a necessary evil, boats can be powered by wind and oars, as they were for millennia before the advent of the evil internal combustion engine.

Beside injuring or killing animals in the water by hitting them, other harms from power boats are air & water pollution, consumption of oil, and the massive amount of noise made by the obscene number of power boats in the oceans, to the point where whales now have trouble communicating with each other.

For those of us who care about other creatures, power boats are an abomination that should be totally eliminated.

Jeff Hoffman

Organizing & Deep Ecology

Re Dave's comments about how a deep ecologist should communicate with non-enviros:
When I was an Earth First! campaigner, this issue often arose, because EF! was, by definition, a biocentric group.  However, there are always reasons to oppose a bad project that would benefit humans, so those reasons would always be prominently included in our literature and media talking points.  A deep ecologist who tries to offend people, as you describe, is doing a disservice to both deep ecology and the general enviro movement.

That said, of course deep ecologists should never be afraid of expressing their feelings and ideologies where appropriate, nor should they ever be dishonest if confronted with this issue.  On the other hand, it is clearly not appropriate to raise the issue where it could alienate potential allies.

Jeff Hoffman

Solutions To Overpopulation

Dlondonx,
No one on this site has ever advocated "some group of humans deciding which people would be allowed to reproduce, and which would not, or which groups should just be destroyed," as you state.  Instead, I advocate a carrot/stick approach: empowerment of all women so that they totally control their own reproduction, including free birth control and free, unrestricted abortions on demand, coupled with a strict one child/family policy.  This would apply to everyone, so there's no group deciding who gets to reproduce, because everyone gets to have one child.  Furthermore, no one advocates destroying anyone.

A hysterical response to a call for lower human population, like yours, is strong evidence of extreme anthropocentrism, to the point of failing to value anything but humans.  Why the extreme distortion of what I or anyone else here said?

Jeff Hoffman

Clarification

Tom,
I didn't mean to imply you're a shill for the cattle industry.  What I meant was that you seem to have been misled by its propaganda.  This is a very powerful and wealthy industry that hires "scientists" to convince people that cattle grazing is good for the land, just as the Bush administration uses "scientists" to convince people that global warming doesn't exist or, if it does, that it's natural and not human-caused.

The harms caused to the western U.S. by cattle and sheep grazing are massive and extensive, but also require a good amount of research in order to understand them.  If your sources come from those who support or are supported by the industry, you have no way to know what's really going on.  The only native ungulates similar to cattle were bison, and their habitat was east of the Rocky Mountains, with a few rare exceptions of very small herds.

Jeff Hoffman

Overgrazing

Tom,
No, I was referring to all cattle and sheep in the west.  See "Sacred Cows at the Public Trough" by Nancy Ferguson and/or "Welfare Ranching" by George Wuerthner and/or "The Western Range Revisited"
by Debra L. Donahue.  As I said, cattle are not native, and the western grasses cannot tolerate being grazed much, nor being tromped on by such heavy animals.  Ranchers also employ some very anti-environmental tactics, like killing predators that would normally keep ungulates from lounging by creeks or streams, erecting fences, etc.  All of this contributes to the harm, but there is no more ecologically correct number of cattle per acre than there is nuclear bombs per city.  Your statement sounds like cattle industry propaganda.  What is your source?

Jeff Hoffman

Animal Rights/Human Health v. Ecosystems

While everything said here is correct, you left out the most ecologically important point: cattle & sheep grazing in the western U.S. is extremely ecologically destructive.  These animals are not native, nor anything like the native ungulates in either behavior or population, and have turned our western grasslands into deserts.  At least cattle kept indoors won't do this, nor will their "constant shuffling of hooves raise[] a bacteria-laden dust cloud that's carried by the prevailing winds."  The best solution is to completely remove cattle and domestic sheep from the west.  As consumers, we should all boycott beef and lamb, two totally unnecessary foods that Americans eat way too much of anyway, until those animals are raised in ways that are not ecologically destructive AND are humane.

Jeff Hoffman

Sorry, But

Chris, I was perfectly willing to abide by the rules of this thread, but you didn't criticize Economist when he trashed another poster.  Why didn't you step in then instead of rebuking me, when all I did was respond to his breaking of your rules?

Jeff Hoffman

Erroneous Claims And Improper Focus

This is another anthropocentric article that denigrates the natural world by denigrating those who fought and fight for it.

Re "who benefits from saving wilderness," how about the wilderness itself?  Anthropocentrists like authors Klingle and Taylor are so empathically deficient that they apparently can't even imagine that other species have any feelings or desires, so they strive to "put a human face on the environment."  This is exactly what should NOT be done, except for a stragegy to convince anthropocentric people to preserve wilderness in its natural condition.  What should be done is to make an effort to educate people, not intellectually but intuitively, in order to awaken empathy for the Earth and other forms of life.

Re the shortcomings of some environmental leaders, even if they were rich or racist doesn't mean that they were not correct.  I don't see any point in denigrating these heroes by concentrating on their negative traits.  What they've done for the Earth is beyond reproach.  Nor is it productive to question their motives.  I agree that why a person does something can be just as important as what he or she does, but is this site about Buddhism or environmentalism?  We embrace hunters and fishermen in our fight to preserve wild areas, but, with a few rare biocentric exceptions, their motives are certainly much different than mine.

The biggest problem with the argument made in this piece is that it fails to recognize the deep ecology movement, which is mostly made up of people who are not wealthy, but who instead shun materialist values in favor of all life.  There is another reason that we believe that preserving natural areas in their natural conditions is paramount, which is that it's immoral to kill except to eat, or to harm ecosystems, or to pollute.  It has nothing to do with preserving the best land for the rich or for white people.

Jeff Hoffman

Another Take

Co-founder of Earth First! Dave Foreman once said that we (Earth First!ers) are not environmentalists, because the latter are concerned with human health issues.  He said that we are wilderness and wildlife advocates.  Personally, I don't know what to say about that, except that I hate to destroy whatever little power we have from our numbers.

Because Economist -- which tells where his priorities are -- criticized other posts, I'll criticize his.  Your points are both wrong.

1. The "cataclysmic events" you refer to are not only natural, they're necessary in order to have life as we know it.  For example, hurricanes move warmer air to cooler areas.  Without these "cataclysmic events" we wouldn't be here.  So, we do want to be in balance with those events.  As a Native American once said, all natural disasters are due to the ignorance of white men.  What he meant is that people need to organize their living within how nature works: don't live in flood plains or close to volcanoes, don't build things
that earthquakes or tornadoes will knock down, etc.

2. Your statement that "there is no society that has ever not had major impacts on ecosystems" is totally false.  In fact, only civilizations have had major negative impacts on ecosystems.  Hunter/gatherer societies have been able to exist in harmony with their ecosystems.

While I'm very willing to work with others with very different points of view, I am a strong supporter of VHEMT (http://www.vhemt.org/), but that's not a definition of environmentalism.  I think Birdboy nailed the way I'd define the word, though I'd also add restoration where humans have caused ecological harm.

Jeff Hoffman

Conclusion

I think we've all spent too much time on this, I know I have.  I will conclude my comments with this:  Anthropocentrists and biocentrists don't have any common ground on which to discuss this issue, and we live in different worlds.  The former don't understand the latter, because this is a highly anthropocetric society and that's the only paradigm people in this society ever see, except for rare occassions on a superficial level.  On the other hand, we biocentric/deep ecologists fully understand you, because we came from your world.

So, let's work together where we can.  For example, we all agree that we need tree thinning to fix overgrown areas caused by human fire suppression and cattle grazing.  In other areas, we'll just have to agree to disagree and will not be on the same side.On It's time for conservationists to collaborate with an agency they've long demonized posted 3 years, 8 months ago 103 Responses

Cultivated Images

Tobacco companies spent a lot of money convincing youth that smoking is rebellious.  However, it's just the opposite.  Most people start smoking between the ages of 10 and 12.  By the time they're old and mature enough to figure out it's not such a great idea, they've been smoking for five or ten years and can't quit because they're addicted.  The reason most youth begin smoking in the first place is to fit in with other youth or emit a rebellious personna toward their peers and adults against whom they want to (rightfully) rebel, but they're just being dupes of the industry.

Jeff Hoffman

Explanations Of "FACTS"

Atreyger,
"Turtle Island" is what Native Americans call North America or the U.S.

Re Eld's deer: Why would they become extinct without humans artificially burning grasses?  How did they survive before humans got there?  This can't have been going on for more than a couple of thousand years, if that long, so what happened before that?  This comment is indicative of someone who thinks that life depends on god-like humans to help it along.  Give up the hubris; humans almost always destroy nature, they don't help it.

Following my logic, we should attempt to restore nature to the condition it was in before humans discovered agriculture.  I never said or implied anything about dinosaurs.  I realize that life is change and ecosystems also change, but humans have wreaked havoc on the Earth over the past 10-12,000 years, and the destruction is accelerating.

Re extinction and exterpation caused by hunter/gatherers: The First people in North Americal and Australia did kill far too many animals and thus caused these problems, but they eventually learned to scale back their killings because they have a respectful attitude toward other species.  This culture will never learn or change how it affects other species unless it has a major attitude adjustment.  Of course I don't support killing so many of a species that its numbers are significantly lowered, but this is not a necessary attribute of hunter/gatherer societies.

Re slash & burn: You're wrong about it being sustainable in a tropical rainforest; see my previous post explaining why.  If you have facts to the contrary, I'll be happy to consider them, but I don't see how anything can grow back in virtually zero nutrient soil.  Killing trees in a tropical rainforest is devastating for that reason alone.On It's time for conservationists to collaborate with an agency they've long demonized posted 3 years, 8 months ago 103 Responses

Other Problems In National Forests

Docpine,
First, I agree with you about overpopulation and development being threats to natural areas, including forests.  There are many ways to destroy the Earth, and killing trees is only one of them.

"[O]il and gas development, providing access to private inholders, [and] grazing" are all ecologically destructive activities that should be banned from our public lands.  Private inholders should be bought out, by eminent domain if necessary.  The cattle industry has caused more ecological damage to the western U.S. than any other industry (some people say than all other industries combined!).  Most pertinent to this discussion, cattle destroy western grasses, and when this occurs in or at the edge of forests, the forests become unnaturally dense.

While it's good to know that you're not killing trees in your area, there are other ways to destroy ecosystems and cause needless killing of other forms of life.On It's time for conservationists to collaborate with an agency they've long demonized posted 3 years, 9 months ago 103 Responses

History Of The USFS

Piscatorviator,,
You left a very important, fundamental fact out of your post.  When the National Forest system was first created, logging was strictly prohibited in our National Forests.  Unfortunately, it only took about ten years for the timber industry to influence enough politicians to change the law.  This had nothing to do with what the public wanted, except for the tiny portion who made money by killing trees.

We have a corrupt government, where private campaign donations and lobbying by businesses are not only allowed but considered part of the "democratic" process.  The U.S. is a plutocracy  -- NOT a democracy -- and has been for a long time, though it has been getting much worse over the past few decades.  Our government is also quite fascist (which basically means that big business runs the government).  Until these things change, one cannot just accept what the government does as being legitimate or representative of the people.  (I'm not under any illusions that Americans are liberal, open minded, or environmentalists; they're not, regardless of what they tell pollsters.  But neither are they as anti-environmental or right wing as the government.)

Backcut,
We agree that the U.S. should stop importing wood.  (I am opposed to ALL international trade because of the environmental harms caused by transportation, but that's another issue.)  However, the environmentally beneficial solution is to live more naturally and greatly lower our population, not to kill more trees.  For example, houses need not be made of wood, and hemp can substitute for wood in all cases.

But your posts contain what seem to be serious contradictions.

You said you supported Ralph Nader for president.  Well, his position on public lands was no commercial activity, period, so I don't think you'd be too happy with him.

You claim to be supportive of the environment but denigrate groups like Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity, and preservationists.  Sierra Club's only problem is that it's too conservative.  If people like the late David Brower or current board member Captain Paul Watson were running the Club, it would be great group.  The Center IS a fantastic group that has saved more wildlife and wilderness than every other group put together.  We preservationists merely want to preserve natural areas in their natural conditions (which, by the way, include fires, droughts, insect infestations, forests and meadows warring for land, etc.)

So, which side are you really on?  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were just not being clear instead of assuming that you were being dishonest.  A third possibility is that you haven't really thought this stuff through, which led to your self-contradictions.On It's time for conservationists to collaborate with an agency they've long demonized posted 3 years, 9 months ago 103 Responses

More Freddy Lies

"There's 10 to 100 times MORE trees in the western forests than before the arrival of the white man."  "I really can't see where you got the part about today's forest being "better" than before the white man. I, certainly, never said or implied that."

No comment, this speaks for itself.

"Many who cannot argue with facts and science resort to personal attacks. It appears that Jeff is no different ...."

FACT: Forests have been around for millions of years, long before homo sapiens.  FACT: Forests not only survived but thrived before humans started killing trees.  FACT: The ONLY threats to forests are caused by humans, whether by directly killing trees or indirectly by unnatural management practices, like fire suppression and cattle grazing in forests, or by taking water out of the ground.  FACT: The only benefit to forests from killing trees is where the forests are unnaturally dense due to human fire suppression or cattle grazing. (In these cases, I fully support thinnning to restore the forests to their natural density, but no more logging than that.  However, these are the only situtations in which an Earth First!er would advocate thinning.  Anyone advocating any thinning for other reasons, like to save jobs or homes, is not an Earth First!er.)  FACT: Wildfires are not only natural, but NECESSARY for many forest ecosystems to be healthy.  For example, the cones of some connifers will not release their seeds without a fire.  Also, natural wildfires thin the forest so that "fuel" does not become too abundant and cause catastrophic fires.  FACT: Insect infestations in natural forests, which have more than one type of tree (as opposed to the tree farms that have only one species) do not destroy forests.  The insects generally only thin the forests, destroying only the weak trees.  This is a natual form of tree thinning.

I'm accused of "using politics, rhetoric and emotional angst to further [my] unsustainable goals."

My goal is a human race that lives in harmony with nature instead of destroying it for other pleasures such as comfort, convenience, or profit.  This is far beyond sustainablility, which is a very low standard that allows as much destruction and killing as you think you can get away with.

"Whatever happened to the famous tolerance of the old hippie movement?"

Don't know, never been a hippie.  I'm a punk rocker.  Hippies are annoying as hell.On It's time for conservationists to collaborate with an agency they've long demonized posted 3 years, 9 months ago 103 Responses

Identifying The Problems v. Immediate Solutions

Kip,
When I say or insinuate that we "should" do or not do something, I am identifying how humans lived naturally before they began living out of harmony with nature.  I would not say that humans should immediately all move to the tropics, as if we could, anyway, but we should eventually get back there if we want to avoid the harms of living in climates to which we're not physically suited.  The tropical savanna of Africa is where we came from, and it's undeniable that the farther we move from the tropics, the more ecological harm we have to do just to survive.  We need to at least take this knowledge into account when making decisions, at best begin restrictions on human developments far from the tropics.  Maybe someday we'll all end up back there, but it won't be for a long time.

Re getting knowledge from TV, very bad idea.  Television is the ultimate corporate propaganda tool.  The networks sell the viewers to the advertisers, and the advertisers want shows that promote consumption.  So of course a TV show will try to convince viewers that everyone kills trees in order to make people feel better about consuming wood, but it's simply not true.  As I said, the truth is that MOST traditional indigenous cultures did not kill trees except on very rare occasions, mostly ceremonial ones.  The ones who did, like the one on Easter Island, didn't survive long enough to be murdered by white people.

Mbp1111,
Dave posted an excellent comment about the hypocracy charge that will suffice for my response:  http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/3/3/15539/05694On It's time for conservationists to collaborate with an agency they've long demonized posted 3 years, 9 months ago 103 Responses

Apples, Oranges, And Anthropocentrism

First, I think we need to identify what we're talking about: goals or strategies.

Re goals, there are two distinct priorities here: the Earth and humans.  I can only speak for myself, but you will NEVER convince me to change priorities from the Earth to humans.  I've put both my life and freedom on the line, literally and physically, for the Earth, so if an there were something that could scare me into changing my mind, I've already experienced it.

Re strategies:  I agree that we should not publicly advocate a misanthropic position, because it would clearly be counterproductive.  However, people who post on this site are supposed to be communicating with other environmentalists, not the general public, not even social activists.  I was a spokesperson for many actions when I worked with Earth First! and am now an attorney.  Speaking for myself, I am well aware of how to speak to diplomatically the public.  What is said on this site is not necessarily what I'm advocating saying in public, it expresses the environmental problems that humans are causing and what our goals should be.  Our goals must remain the same (see previous paragraph), but yes, we must speak diplomatically and use productive strategies when speaking or writing to the general public.  Where we differ is in our priorties, not ideologies, though this difference could result in very different outcomes.

To Arthur (this goes for Dave and Kip, too, but I'm specifically responding to Arthur's comments),
You are clearly anthropocentric, the other side of the coin from misanthropy.  The difference between us is that we prioritize  By YOUR definition, which is correct, we are not prejudiced because we prioritize non-humans.  ("[P]rejedice:A preconceived preference or idea.")  We prioritize non-humans because they are in need of help far more than humans and because humans are causing the problems.  Personally, my misanthropy is based on the FACT that humans fit the medical description of being a cancerous tumor on the Earth.  While we can debate about whether this is OK and, if so, what to do about it, there is no debating the fundamental fact.  The vast majority of humans are either unaware of the situation or in total denial of it, the latter describing your position.

I'm also sick to death of being told that we "need to work with others ..." or need to do anything else.  I'll define my own priorities, thank you, and they'll be defined by what I think is most in need of help.  With 6.5 BILLION people on Earth and climbing, humans are clearly not what needs help, non-humans and ecosystems are!  How about "people who work on social issues need to work with environmentalists, because the state of the natural environment affects us all, and because there will be no social issues if we make the Earth uninhabitable"?  I'll compromise with you (don't tell any of my old EF! friends): you don't tell me what to work on, and I won't tell you what to work on.

To Kip,
First, I have no idea where this "environmental authoritarianism" to which you refer exists, certainly not on this planet except possibly in a few microscopically small areas where people still live as hunter/gatherers.  On the rest of the planet, we have a very strong anti-environmental authoritarianism in place that's destroying all life.  Instead of authoritarianism, I'd like to see people evolve to the point where they give up materialism and overpopulation and respect the rest of the Earth, but absent that, yes, I'd rather have environmental authoritarianism than allow people to destroy and kill.  At heart I'm an anarchist, but anarchy first requires taking greater responsibility in order to have more personal freedom.  (This is where libertarianism fails, because it doesn't include the responsibility portion, which is fundamental.)

Second, "[t]he reason the purist view," as you call it, "has no traction" is because people value things like comfort and materialism more than they respect other forms of life, not because "it is misanthropic."  Your denigration of a view that has people living in harmony with nature as "purist" shows that you don't value non-humans very much, either.  People used to live like this, but as a whole decided they'd rather be comfortable and have "things" at the expense of the rest of the Earth.

Third, Earth First! did not "evolve into a people-hating organization in the 1980s" or at any other time that I know of.  Earth First! was founded in 1980.  When I began working with it in 1984, there was a great DIVERSITY of people in the group, ranging from misanthropists to humanists who thought that giving priority to the Earth was the best thing that humans could do for themselves.  And guess what: we all tolerated each other's views and worked well with each other.  This comment shows great ignorance about Earth First!, probably caused by buying into corporate propaganda about us instead of researching for yourself (working with the group, talking to those who actually did, etc).

To answer your question about how to save the Earth: 1) oppose all environmentally destructive projects, giving priority to the most destructive ones (mining, logging, dams, etc.). This is done by organizing with people, not excluding them as you think we're trying to do.  2) Educate people as much as possible.  Try to awaken some sense of empathy with other forms of life and some feeling that everything is alive.  Educating children should be the top priority, because that has the most chance of success.

"Caring for nature cannot exclude caring for people."  Not only would the Earth be fine without people, it would be much better off.  Again, this is not my opinion, it is a biological and ecological fact, so your statement is provably false.  It doesn't have to be this way.  If humans would give up their extremely environmentally destructive lifestyles, we could live in harmony with the Earth and hopefully contribute to her beauty instead of her demise.

Finally, your statement about "trying to get environmentalism to mature as an idea" shows a total lack of knowledge of movements like Earth First!, which was the most mature form of environmentalism until the group was taken over by Rainbow People and leftists in the late '80s.  EF! was mature because it realized that humans are not at the center of the universe, and are not the best or most important thing on the planet.  Being able to give others the same respect that you give yourself is a sign of maturity.  Worshipping the human race, which is what the vast majority of humanity does, is very immature indeed!

Jeff Hoffman

Consuming Less & Responsibility

Bookerly,
You're right that this article hit a nerve with me, but not for the reason you think.  While I usually agree with the left, I can't stand anti-environmental leftists (or anti-environmental anybody, for that matter), and Elizabeth Chin seems to be one of those if this article is any indication.  People who strive to simplify their lives should be encouraged, not demeaned.  Actual simplification means less consumption, which is good for the Earth.  If the article would have focused on false simplification such as greenwashed consumption, it would have been useful.  Instead, the author denigrated the efforts of people who are trying to simplify their lives and hopefully consume less.  I don't see how contrasting those who are trying to decrease their consumption with those who are too poor to consume needless crap benefits any environmental discussion or the Earth.  Again, the former should be commended and encouraged.

Re responsibility, who tells "people they are responsible for nature, but not for other people"?  The existence of wealthy people is what causes poverty, and I haven't seen anyone on this site try to deny that fact.  The fact that some of us care more about nature than about humans doesn't mean that we think that people have no responsibility for their actions toward their fellow humans.

Jeff Hoffman

Grass Fires & Trees

Mbp1111,
Grass fires set by Native Americans burned the surface.  They probably didn't even kill grass, as the roots would be left intact, and they certainly didn't kill trees or animals, though they might have prevented trees from growing in edge areas.

More fundamentally, your description of trees as "resources" and your implication that indigenous people destroy the environment as much as we do is the typical defense of those who support environmental destruction.  My response is simply to look at what the Americas, for example, looked like before Europeans got here and compare that to what it looks like now.

Trees should not be viewed as resources, but as living beings that deserve as much respect as humans.  When I stayed at the Dine (Navajo) reservation in Arizona, the people only used dead wood and called trees "rooted people."  Much more environmental way to live and think.

Atreyger,
Your comment about needing to kill trees to live in Russia is an argument agains humans living there, not proof that people need to kill trees.  Humans have no fur and should be living in the tropics where we evolved.  Even having to wear clothes causes environmental destruction.  The farther from the tropics that humans live, the more destruction they have to do to survive.On It's time for conservationists to collaborate with an agency they've long demonized posted 3 years, 9 months ago 103 Responses

Working Together v. Selling Out

"Future interests have been represented primarily by what is referred to as the "environmental movement," and have often been blended on the political stage with other interests related only incidentally, such as aesthetic/intrinsic valuation of natural objects and systems or the more immediate effects of regional pollution."

Working for future interests ("posterity") will yield the same results as working for "esthetic/intrinsic valuation of natural objects and systems" or pollution, if environmental sustainability is taken into account when working on the former.

I agree with using any credible argument that will cause more people to work on environmental issues, but saying that enviros are prejudiced because some of us prioritize non-humans over humans is as ridiculous as it is offensive.  If anything, it's the vast majority of humans who are prejudiced against non-humans, and that's the root of all environmental problems.  The fact that some of us like tigers, bears, and trees, for example, more than people has no bearing on how we feel toward certain groups of humans, such as the poor or non-whites.  Enviros should NEVER stop advocating for non-humans, and in fact needs to advocate for them more now than ever.

Jeff Hoffman

Other Cultures

From what you "have seen on Discovery or Travel channel" (?!) you don't think other cultures did without kiliing trees?  Dude, try actually educating yourself instead of being braiwashed by the idiot box!  Go to the library and check out some books on traditional indigenous cultures, starting with those that used to exist on Turtle Island.  "Question everything" is more true for TV than any other form of media.  The vast majority of traditional indigenous cultures killed either no trees or so few that it was unnoticeableOn It's time for conservationists to collaborate with an agency they've long demonized posted 3 years, 9 months ago 103 Responses

Oregon Is Not Always Environmentally Progressive

That state just passed a landowners' rights initiative that's very anti-environmental.  There are many pro-environmnet types in Oregon, but probably at least as many anti-environment types.  I wouldn't base any decisions on what that state does.

Jeff Hoffman

Killing Trees Is Wrong

Period.  It is immoral to kill anything one doesn't eat.  As I said in my earlier post, removing trees that would not be there if not for destructive human activities would be an exception.

In response to atreyger's comment that "wood is as necessary as food," I have just one word:  Why?  People don't eat trees, and many cultures lived without killing trees, using small amounts of deadwood or no wood at all.  It's only our highly environmentally destructive lifestyle that requires trees, but that's does not make them necessary.On It's time for conservationists to collaborate with an agency they've long demonized posted 3 years, 9 months ago 103 Responses

Restoration

I knew Mitch pretty well from our Earth First! days in the '80s.  I haven't seen or talked to him in 15-20 years, but he was as cool as anyone, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt here unless I hear otherwise from another old EF!er.

Fundamentally, restoration toward natural (i.e., free from human interference) ecosystems is the ONLY justifiable reason for killing trees, the idea of which I generally strongly dislike.  However, some forests have become unnaturally overgrown due to fire suppression and/or cattle grazing, both of which were supported on OUR federal lands by the Forest Disservice and the Bureau of Leasing (to ranchers) and Mining (BLM).  In these situations, thinning of the forests would be a good thing.  The problem is, I don't trust the government, which is more in the pockets of industry than ever, or private industry, which only cares about profits and jobs, to limit killing trees to the thinning needed to restore native ecosystems to their natural condition.  These two groups have an enormous way to go to prove that they're willing to restrict logging to the amount needed for restoration.  If they show that they are, this plan should be supported.On It's time for conservationists to collaborate with an agency they've long demonized posted 3 years, 9 months ago 103 Responses

Karen Is Right!

I'm so glad to see that at least some people actually get it.  Eliminating the environmental harms caused by driving will not be accomplished by technology, though the latter might mitigate some of those harms.  For the umpteenth time, there are no magical solutions.  For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, period.  Just the building of roads is very environmentally destructive: compaction of soil, paving over the Earth, fragmentation of wildlife habitat, killing of plants and everything below the pavement, etc.  To the extent, that we choose to live in harmony with nature, we will avoid causing destruction.  To the extent that we do otherwise, we destroy life.On Ethanol is suddenly all the rage in D.C. and Detroit posted 3 years, 9 months ago 18 Responses

Not Hopeless

First, differentiate between hope and realistic expectations.  While the most we can realistically hope for is something left to grow back after humans finish their destruction, we should never give up.  Think of "miracle" comebacks in sports, for example.  You never know what's going to happen.  You should always have hope.

Second, even if your hope is something left to grow back, that's well worth fighting for if you let go of your obsession for humans.  We're far from being the only form of life, so let's fight to give someone else a chance, even if there's no hope for us.

Jeff Hoffman

The Thread That Never Ends

Though I'm having more fun with this than I normally do.  Sorry to be the last to answer, I've been busy trying to save the Earth on my paying job.

"How can you possibly know the view of non-human nature (Which you have, incidentally, anthropomorphised and given an individual opinion about human history)?"

I never claimed to "know" how other forms of life felt, but anyone with empathy toward other forms of life can certainly have a good idea.  Imagine how any wild animal, plant, river, whatever, would feel about being killed by humans destroying its ecosystem, or about polluted.  The only excuse for killing is to eat.  Otherwise, we shouldn't be killing anything.  You talk about humans being a part of nature; well, those groups who live without killing except to eat are doing that.  The rest of us are destroying nature.  We are a part of her the same way a cancerous tumor is a part of the person's body.

Your sexual metaphor is strictly your own.  I never imagined nature to be a female being raped my a male human race.  I realize that others, generally women, have propounded that metaphor, and I agree with it, but it doesn't describe how I feel.

"I think you haven't looked around at the world situation very carefully if you think we have tried to feed, clothe, shelter, and educate people."

I didn't say anything like that.  (While doing that feels like a good idea, doing it would cause even more ecological devastation considering how grossly overpopulated humans are.)  What I said was that very poor Native Americans I worked with have the same environmental ethics that I do, and that rich people are usually very anti-environmental, so that poverty, at least as defined in this country, is not what causes lack of an environmental ethic.

"[I]sn't it extremely arrogant and self-centered to presume you have superior knowledge of nature to the rest of humanity?"

I never claimed superior knowledge of nature.  Traditional indigenous people, wildlife and marine biologists, arborists, etc., and many others I can't think or don't know about have better knowledge than I do.  It's not about just knowledge, though that's certainly important to a point, it's about ATTITUDE, dude!  Where we differ is that I don't think that humans should kill anything they don't eat or should pollute anything.  This of course would require a much lower human population and an end to industrial society and probably even agriculture, but my priority is the entire Earth, while yours clearly is humans.

"[H]ow do you think the 1,000 or so people out there who subsist daily on the same resources you as an individual use each day would respond to your claims of special insight to how people should behave?"

You shouldn't make statements like this when you don't know to whom you're writing.  I've been poor enough to go hungry to the point of losing weight and lived in the slums of west Oakland, purportedly the worst in California.  I have no kids, no car, no cell phone, and the only reason I have this computer is that I'm an environmental lawyer and need it for my work.

That said, I realize that aside from the brief time I couldn't afford to eat enough to maintain my weight, I've never been poor on the level of a large portion of people in Africa and Asia.  However, their poverty does not change the fact that humans are destroying life as we know it.  Most people wouldn't like my opinions on how humans should behave, either, but that doesn't mean that my "insight, as you put it, is any less valid.

"Finally, you offer two choices:  A.) Do what you want with the land or B.) you, with this special insight to nature's feelings, keep people from the land.  How about a 3rd?  Manage land and ecosystems with representative democratic institutions.  You may not get "wilderness" as American's define it, but you probably won't need it."

Your choice leaves nothing for other species except what humans allow.  First, this is not sustainable, let alone in harmony with nature.  Again, without large areas of wilderness and sufficient corridors between them, ecosystems can't be healthy.  This is not my opinion, but a biological fact.  Second, this point of view lacks any sense of morality from my point of view and, more importantly, from the point of view of everything but humans, to the extent that we can know that.  You're saying that humans are godlike and should decide what lives and what dies.  This attitude begins to get to the heart of what's wrong with the human race.

Jeff Hoffman

Reply To Kip

Thanks for the reply.  I normally limit my comments to the issues and apologize for the "jerks" comment.  I have a special problem with the "Death ..." authors that stems from a long time enviro activist's (who's also a close friend) experience with one of them.  I won't discuss that here, because the "Death ..." person can't defend himself, and because even though I totally trust my friend, my info is second hand.  However, EVERY environmentalist I respect has dismissed the "Death ..." theory, both for the reason I gave and for other reasons.  Now, onto your substantive comments.

Re the origin of environmental destruction:

I guess the veracity of this statement depends on one's point of view.  From the point of view of anything non-human, the problem began at least 10-12,000 years ago, when humans discovered agriculture and began overpopulating.  (I will ignore human overhunting of animals to extinction before that.)  At that time there were only 10 MILLION people on the entire planet!  Adding to this number caused overconsumption by definition, because the 10 million people were living in equilibrium with the natural environment.  By manipulating nature with agriculture, humans circumvented a natural population control and were thus able to overconsume without immediate consequences to themselves, even though, by definition, they had to destroy natural ecosystems in order to practice agriculture. Overpopluation also caused a lack of space for other species.  My sense of ecological morality, for lack of a better term tells me that large mammals like homo sapiens should not cover the entire planet.  To put it intellectually, ecosystems need large areas of wilderness in order to be healthy, and need wildlife corridors between those areas of wilderness.  These large areas and corridors are not possible with anywhere near the numbers we now have.  Humans can live in wilderness, but only as pre-industrial hunter/gatherers.

Re wealth, education, and freedom creating an environemental ethic:

This is utterly untrue.  When I worked with Earth First!, I also worked with the American Indian Movement and the International Indian Treaty Council.  My friends in those groups had the same Earth First! attitude re human destruction of nature that I did, though some had less misanthropy.  These people were very poor by American standards.  On the other side of the coin, I have discussed these matters with rich people, and they have what I consider to be a very anti-environmental attitude.

My environmental ethics began when I rode my first horse around the woods in northern Illinois.  (Before you go off on wealthy horse owners, the horse cost me $365 and I paid $60/month board.  None of the people I knew from horses were rich as far as I knew.)  I was never formally educated about environmental matters, aside from the first Earth Day, for which we had an assebly in our high school.  Empathy for others comes from within, along with from some experience in natural areas, not from being wealthy or educated.  I've always identified with those most in need, first working on civil rights and poverty, then moving on to non-humans when I realized that they are in much greater need of help than humans.

"By assuming that most people would not come to your (our) conclusions about the importance of the earth, given the right context, you diminish your own basis for caring about nature (it is one that must be imposed on others)."

Well, most people have not come to our conclusions.  What's your solution, just let them continue to destroy the Earth and hope that they get it before they destroy life as we know it?  Just as society regulates other behavior, we should prohibit ecological destruction.  That said, of course it would be ideal for humans as a whole mentally and spiritually to evolve to at least the point of traditional indigenous hunter/gatherers, who love and respect all life, and who consider other forms of life to be relatives, not "resources" to exploit.

"What kind of environmentalism is it that patently ignores the world's most prevalant species?"

Humans shouldn't be ignored.  Instead, they need to reigned in.  I assume you meant ignoring human problems.  The reason I don't give priority to those problems is precisely because humans are the most prevalent species.  Humans are thriving.  It's everything else that's suffering and needs our help.

Jeff Hoffman

More Regulation Needed

Along with rights go responsibilities.  If people can't handle the responsibilities, they shouldn't get to have the rights.  Because people have shown that they will buy obnoxiously large vehicles that they totally don't need, we need regulations limiting the size and weight of private motor vehicles.

Jeff Hoffman

Nature & Humans

To Tom from Jeff (as opposed to jdhlax):

This discussion has become very complicated and convoluted.  Of course we are part of nature, what isn't?  Everything in the universe came from something natural at some point.  The fact that we're a part of nature is thus meaningless but, it does serve to make a very anti-environmental point: because humans are part of nature, everything we do is natural and therefore OK.  I couldn't disagree more.

As I said earlier, by their actions humans have separated themselves from the natural world.  There's nothing natural about being able to overpopulate without some natural controls lowering the population (starvation, lack of water, disease).  There's nothing natural about killing trees, digging into the Earth, or any other aspect of industrial society.  There not even anything natural about agriculture -- no other animal lives that way.  There's nothing natural about paving over the Earth.  I could go on till I starve.  Humans have used their grossly overdeveloped intellect -- compared to their grossly underdeveloped sense of wisdom -- to manipulate the natural world.  This would be OK, except that doing it has caused massive ecological and environmental harm.  Judging by many of the comments here, I wonder if the commenters even know how bad things are and the fact that humans are the cause of the problems.

The fact that it's clear to many of us that humans have separated themselves from the natural world does not mean that my ideology has anything significant in common with that of an Exxon exec, or any other exec for that matter.  We all believe that the Earth is round and orbits the sun, but so what?  The fact that people have purposely acted unnaturally in order to make things easier for themselves is uncontestable; the issue is how we need to change so that we can stop destroying the Earth.  And BTW, a misanthropic attitude comes from a love of life, which we misanthropes see humans destroying.

I find nothing interesting, effective, or radical about Kip's approach.  It's the same leftist crap that the Death of Environmentalism jerks were spewing.  The basic premise is that humans are better and/or more important than everything else, so we need to concentrate on helping out the less well off ones, and this somehow is supposed to pass as a new type of environmentalism.  For those of us who constantly strive to help those in the greatest need, non-humans clearly deserve our attention far more than humans.  Watering down the environmental movement by concentrating on things like poverty is no way to protect the non-humans.  I understand and agree that desperately poor people will do desperate things, including destroying the environment, but that's only one small cause of environmental destruction and doesn't get anywhere near the roots of the problems, which are overpopulation and overconsumption, the latter also being consuming anything we have no business consuming, like oil.

Finally, I agree that we need to find a much better way to live, because our current lifestyles, even those of non-wealthy people, are neither sustainable (a very low standard that allows as much destruction as you feel you can get away with) or in harmony with nature or the Earth (a much better standard).  I agree with the poster who advocates bioregionalism, but notice the "bio" portion of the word.  It doesn't mean that people in a certain area should be allowed to cause a certain type of environmental harm just because doing so is traditional in that area or because they can't figure out another way to earn little green pieces of paper.  It means that people have to learn to live within the constraints of their particular ecosystems and sub-ecosystems.  We still need universal prevention of things like pollution, destruction of ecosystems, and harm to wildlife.

Jeff Hoffman

Humans & The Rest Of The World

"[B]y separating humanity and nature, you mimic traditional western thinking and reify human-based environmental destruction."

I didn't separate humaninty from nature; those who decided to do things like substitute agriculture for the hunter/gatherer lifestyle or kill trees or dig into the Earth did.  It is our actions that separated us from nature originally, but most humans are now so disconnected from the natural world that they don't even know where their food or water comes from.

"Your thinking owes more to the likes of Exxon execs than you care to imagine."

How so?  Without an explanation, this makes no sense.

"Environmentalists like you fixate on overpopulation as the greatest evil; yet it's always somebody else you wish would vanish without a trace."

I never said anyone should vanish.  I've said that all families should be limited to one child until the human population is greatly lowered from its current size.  People should not be everywhere on the planet; no species anywhere near our size occupies anywhere near the area that we do, not to mention that human destruction, often euphamistically called "development," is just about everywhere.

Jeff Hoffman

OK, Let's Engage

I have no problem engaging anyone with any legitimate point of view.  Would you engage a racist who claimed that non-whites are inferior?  Everyone has some point at which they don't consider positions legitimate enough to bother with a discussion.  That said, let's talk about this particular type of group.

If someone posits that business concerns should take precedence over, say, environmental ones, that person is just advocating a position that serves his or her personal interest.  That's what I mean that the position is not legitimate.  That said, I've also been convinced by people with other points of view.  The difference between those situations and this one is that those people weren't just pushing points of view that would benefit them personally.  If you just advocate a position that would benefit you personally to the detriment of others (human or otherwise), why should I not call that position illegitimate?

Jeff Hoffman

Unreasonable Positions

Just because Hayward seemed "like a straight shooter" in a series of email exchanges doesn't mean that his positions are reasonable or legitimate.  The American Enterprise Institute is a right wing think tank that places business interests (i.e., money) above all else.  I don't know about you, but I don't consider that a reasonable or legitimate position.  Because Hayward is part of the institute, he takes that position, which means that his positions are also unreasonable and illegitimate.

Jeff Hoffman

Reversing Course

"People don't want to 'return' to anything, they want to move forward ..."  If you miss your exit while driving on a highway, do you just keep going because you don't want to "return," or do you turn around?  It's absolutely moronic to refuse to admit to obvious mistakes and start over, trying to get it right the next time.  This is not excactly going back, because you now have knowledge that you lacked the on first try.

Jeff Hoffman

Bad Analysis

This analysis doesn't work for driving.  Air pollution is only one of several environmental problems caused by driving.  What about destruction of ecosystems from oil drilling & refining, and building roads?  Those problems are caused by all drivers, not just ones with more polluting cars.

And bring your own bags to the checkout counter!  Needless consumption of bags, and other containers (buy in bulk where possible) is another bad habit.

Jeff Hoffman

Response To Chris

"[B]y helping improve the communities of the poor, with participation from environmentalists, a positive difference for the ecosystem could also result."

That's possible.  However, a more likely scenario is that environmentally destructive activities will be moved from areas that are already ecological disasters, where poor people live, to areas that were previously in good shape ecologically, which would be a very negative outcome ecologically.  This doesn't mean we can't advocate for the poor and the environment, but as another blogger said, it must be a not-in-anybody's-backyard movement instead of a not-in-my-backyard one.

What caused me to comment on this in the first place is that I feel a lot of pressure, which I consider completely illegitimate, for enviros to become just another group of leftists.  The Death of Environmentalism people are the ones who gave this idea a big voice, though I've also heard it elsewhere.  Well, guess what?  Those of us who are wilderness/wildlife advocates are not going to advocate for social issues, period!  How would enviro justice or anti-racist activists like to be told that what they really should be doing is working for endangered species and ecosystems, because those things need help far more than humans, who are thriving as a whole?

A much better idea would be for those who want to work for social issues like enviro justice to do so, while those of us who want to work for non-human issues work on those.  From those bases, we can make alliances.  In some instances we can help on each other's issues (we'll demonstrate against the power plant in your neighborhood if you demonstrate against logging), but mainly we should stick to our own work.  However, we can all SUPPORT each other politically, by both pressure and our votes.  Even together we're still a pretty small minority, but we're a significantly larger minority together than apart.  This type of alliance makes much more sense to me than badgering enviromentalists to work on issues to which they don't give as much priority, even if we're all on the same side on those issues.

Re whether to pursue strategies that advocate for changes that would result in "perhaps not the same outcome if the primary goal was to improve and protect the ecosystem itself, but an improvement none-the-less," my answer is an old Earth First! slogan: No Compromise in Defense of Mother Earth!  Period!  Put another way, it's better to fight for something in which you believe and lose than to fight for something in which you don't believe and win.  Everything non-human on this planet is so devastated by human overpopulation, overconsumption, and other human activities that I cannot, in all good conscience, fight for anything less than full restoration of species and ecosystems, as much as possible.

Jeff Hoffman

Social v. Environmental Issues

"Environmental justice does way more to put a human face on vague eco-issues than RFK Jr. ever could."

How could environmental justice "put a human face" on wildlife and wilderness issues, which are the most important enviro issues by far?  Do we even want to "put a human face" on these issues?  Humans need to get over themselves and start respecting other forms of life.

And BTW, environmental justice is basically a social, not environmental, issue.  Not that there's anything wrong with advocating that poor people shouldn't be crapped on constantly, but it does the Earth no good for the environmental movement to be hijacked by leftists.

Jeff Hoffman

HOV Lanes Threatened By The Rich

Here in California, the government is proposing to allow people to pay to use some HOV lanes, which will then be called HOT lanes (sorry, don't know what that acronym stands for).  This completely destroys the incentive to carpool for those wealthy enough to pay for these toll lanes, and instead makes the focus of those lanes reducing traffic congestion instead of reducing environmental harms caused by driving.  At least there is an environmental reason to allow those with cars that get better fuel mileage to use HOV lanes.  There is no such reason to allow people to use them merely by paying.

Jeff Hoffman

Montana Is Killing Bison

In order to appease the disgusting ranchers -- sorry for being redundant -- bison in Montana are being killed in large numbers.  http://lowbagger.org/fivehundredthbison.html  Instead, cattle should be removed from all public lands.

Jeff Hoffman

Do Hybrid Incentives ...

actually "put another car on the road"?  This assumes that people who buy hybrids aren't substituting those hybrids for the cars they already own, cars that get worse mileage.  I think there should be incentives for people to buy cars that get better mileage.  But I also agree with SMLowry that vehicles that get lousy mileage should be outlawed, and with Odograph that we should be discouraging driving, specifically with much higher gasoline taxes.

Jeff Hoffman

What The Earth Wants

OK Dave, I know this will be fundamentally different than what you write, but here's mine:

1. I want a world where there are far fewer people so that there is a lot more room for everything else;

2. I want a world with humans who consume very little, but are happy and fulfilled because they don't depend on needless material things for happiness and thus have inner peace;

3. I want a world filled with lots of wilderness and wildlife, like it used to be before humans overpopulated and took over everywhere; and

4. I want a world with humans who wouldn't even think of polluting the land, air, or water, or otherwise unnaturally altering nature in order to have more physical comfort, convenience, or other luxuries.

Jeff Hoffman

Don't Know About Natural Seepage ...

but I know that places where I used to swim in the ocean, like Miami Beach, I will no longer use because of the clumps of oil that I would likely get on my skin from swimming there.

Natural seepage is irrelevant.  Because it's natural, the ecosystems where it occurs, along with the plants and animals living there, have evolved to cope with it.  Human-caused spills are unnatural (that was for Dave) and very harmful to ecosystems and those living there.

Jeff Hoffman

The Trolls' Achilles Heel

When light is shed on them, trolls turn to stone.

Jeff Hoffman

Human Behavior

Birdboy, it's not a question of individual personalities.  I've had horses, lived with dogs and cats, and also watched wildlife; I've come to the same conclusion as you: some animals are more mellow (nice) and some are more aggressive (assholes).  However, what I was referring to is how humans interact with other species and ecosystems, not how they interact with each other.  Perhaps an analogy will explain my point better.

In the first Matrix movie, Mr. Smith told Orpheous that humans were more like a virus species than a mammalian one, because mammals live in harmony with their environments, while humans overpopulate and overconsume until they must move to another place.  While I don't agree technically (mammals are not defined by how they interact with the environment, but by their mammories), this is a good illustration of how human behavior is fundamentally different than that of all other animals.  No other species circumvents natural population controls, destroys entire ecosystems, pollutes the land, air, or water, or causes large numbers of other species to become extinct.  In answer to your question/challenge, these are all examples of human behavior that has no equivalent in nature.  Forget about behavior between individual humans, what's far more important is how humans behave toward the rest of the planet.

Re your monkey experiment (I assume you mean ape), there is a fundamental flaw in this entire idea.  Non-human primates can't make or operate a chainsaw without major human help.  Merely because humans can pervert primate behavior does not mean that primates could or would kill a bunch of trees.  I know of no way to determine whether another species would do what humans have done.  This is a very anti-environmental position that I've had to oppose several times.  Forget about what other animals WOULD do if they could, that's nothing but pure speculation.  Concentrate on what humans and other animals are actually doing.

Re the system cleansing itself:  First, there's no way to tell whether it's a concious effort on the part of the Earth or a pure reaction.  Even though I know that the Earth is alive, I don't know if it's more like a cell or more like a concious being.

Second, and more importantly, look at the deserts in the Middle East.  Much of that land was once forested, but the trees were killed long ago and the land never recovered.  Even if the forests return eventually, say, in a million years, this shows that humans can cause total, very long-lasting ecological destruction before the Earth can respond.

Finally, I agree that no other species could resolve to change its behavior in order to preserve and protect the Earth.  The problem is that no other species is responsible for massive ecological destruction or extinction of species, so no other species needs to do this.

Jeff Hoffman

There You Go Again ...

putting money and business concerns above those for the planet.  When will these evil crapitalists ever learn?  And for you leftists, socialism and communisim are almost as bad, because their main focus is also money.

Jeff Hoffman

"Natural" & Kitties

In answer to Dave's question, "natural" means of nature opposed to of humans.  Otherwise, everything is natural and the word loses all meaning.  "Natural" is a modern word and would not have made sense long ago, but the last humans to live naturally were probably neandrathals.  Homo sapien behavior is so fundamentally different from that of all other life on Earth that differentiating it from the behavior of everything else by the term "unnatural" makes sense.

As to your cats, no Tom, I won't write a polemic about how you should kill them because they're non-native, which they are.  I would say they should never have been brought here and I'd like to see them -- and even more so, dogs and cattle -- sterilized out of existence, but I actually love cats and could never kill one.  (I used to have cats but now realize that they cause a lot of destruction if let outdoors.  Combined with not wanting to lock an animal indoors, I have therefore given up having cats, as much as I enjoyed them.

Jeff Hoffman

Homo Sapiens

Biologically, homo sapiens have exhibited unnatural behavior for almost their entire history.  Even before agriculture, humans hunted some animals to extinction, which is unnatural in that it is totally out of balance with natural systems.  Because humans didn't need meat to survive (I understand that we can no longer get vitamin B-12 from plants, but that we used to be able to until humans somehow screwed that up), this was unnatural.

However, the only meaningful issue now is what to do about the huge mess humans have made of the planet.  Aside from being a Hitler-like character and advocating killing everyone, the only solution I see is for people to begin limiting their biological families to no more than one child, and to begin giving up the technologies that continue to cause ecological problems, starting with the newest ones first like genetic engineering.  I certainly would not expect people to give up everything overnight -- the ultimate goal would not be acheived for centuries -- but that goal would be to evolve way past materialism.  There is an excellent Star Trek episode that pretty much makes my point about evolution NOT being about acquiring higher technology called Errand of Mercy, from the first season of the first series.

Jeff Hoffman

More Reasons ...

to simplify our lifestyles and reduce/eliminate use of these things.

Jeff Hoffman

More Importantly ...

bicyclists and horseback riders are not destroying the Earth by driving.

Jeff Hoffman

Driving Is Heavily Subsidized

Biod, I didn't say gasoline was subsidized, I said driving is.  Big difference.  Even the more enlightened places like western Europe that tax gas more heavily than the U.S. don't tax it enough to pay for all of the road construction, maintenance and repair, and infrastructure needed for driving.

More importantly, no one taxes gasoline to pay for undoing the environmental and ecological harms caused by roads and driving, to the extent that's possible.  These harms include ecosystem destruction from prospecting and drilling for oil, and for refining oil, air and water pollution created by oil refinieries, transportation of oil from extraction to the pump after refining, air pollution caused by burning gasoline, and roads that destroy natural areas and fragment wildlife habitat.

Jeff Hoffman

Priorities

Guess which issue is the most important, looking at the big picture.

Jeff Hoffman

Always Follow The Money

Whenever you consider a study, first look at who paid for it.  The result will always be favorable to the payor.

Jeff Hoffman

Protected Species

Wallrock, I'm not sure what you mean about trying to classify feral cats as a protected species.  Do you mean that they'd get Endangered Species Act protection?  That would be horrible, considering that they're not a native species and already do massive harm by killing birds and other natives.  I would certainly oppose such a proposition. On Umbra on cell phones vs. land lines posted 3 years, 10 months ago 12 Responses

Why Not?

"The tax credit for buying hybrid cars is completely unnecessary."  Driving is completely unnecessary, but at least giving discounts for buying a car that consumes less fuel and pollutes less is good for the environment.  Opposing good subsidies like this is a highly anti-environmental position and shows the great deficiencies of libertarianism.

Jeff Hoffman

Biggest Issues Not Mentioned

Excuse me, but do you even know what you're talking about?  The biggest environmental harm from cell phones is that the towers needed for their use kill millions of birds every year in the U.S. alone!  No one even knows how many -- it's 5-50 million -- because no one's ever done a study.

The second biggest harm is the radiation they add to our atmosphere.  In the U.S. the cell phone companies have bought off the scientists who then released phony results showing that there's no harm from the radiation.  However, honest studies done in the U.K. and New Zealand determined otherwise.On Umbra on cell phones vs. land lines posted 3 years, 10 months ago 12 Responses

How Pathetic ...

that when reporters actually do their jobs, for a change, it calls for celebratory complements.  The phony "objectivity" demanded by the corporate propagand machine, err, I mean media, that requires equal space for points of view with no credibility -- such as those who won't admit that humans are wrecking our atmosphere with industrial pollutants and that one consequence of that is global warming -- is baloney.  If the press were actually trying to keep us informed instead of propaganizing for the corprorate right and the rest of the ruling class, no one would be questioning whether global warming was real or that humans were causing it.  Of course, that doesn't mean that people would be willing to give up material goodies in order to save the planet as we know it, but that's another issue.

Jeff Hoffman

It's About Oil & Empire

"So we're bungling the job in Iraq."

Do you even know what the "job" is?  Hint: It has nothing to do with democracy or building a better life for the Iraqi people.

Jeff Hoffman

Environmentally Speaking

"[I]t is not in fact good news that Ford Motor Co. is going to sack 30,000 employees."

Yes, it's certainly going to be a hardship to those laid off and their families, I've been there myself more than once.  And you're both correct that it's management that's responsible, not the workers.  In fact, it was proven quite awhile ago that Japanese cars could be made just as well in the U.S. as in Japan, because the difference was management, not workers.

However, the fewer people who work in those environmentally destructive industries, the less support those industries will have when they come up against things like the environment.  So, laying off massive numbers of auto workers, loggers, miners, etc. is actually very good for the Earth.  Perhaps not a time to celebrate, more like somber joy.

Jeff Hoffman

Yay West Wing, Boo Dave

That was the best episode of WW I've seen, though I don't like the show as much as my wife.  The anti-nuke stuff was great, exactly what enviros should be applauding.  Taking any kind of a pro-nuke position is highly anti-environmental, because nuclear power requires mining and processing uranium, both very ecologically and environmentally destructive activities, and because nuclear power contaminates the planet with radioactive waste.  These are major harms even without the safety issue, which is relatively minor, since we don't know if another accident will happen.  (Of course, if it does, it becomes rather major.)

Enviros should be promoting solar and wind on small, local scales (solar panels on every roof, windmills on the property of every commercial building, etc.), not Frankenstein stuff like nuclear.  As to the argument that we can't get "enough" power out of those sources, our rejoinder should be that people will just have to use less energy.

Jeff Hoffman

No Compromise!

"There is simply no legal or moral justification for the agency to allow human testing of dangerous chemicals."  I agree, but neither is there any justification for poisoning the Earth with this crap, just because humans are unwilling to live naturally.  All pesticides should be banned, period.

Jeff Hoffman

Whose Side Are You On?

I realize that liberals -- as opposed to radicals or progressives -- feel that they have to pay homage to the opposing point of view even when it has no merit, but jeeze Dave!  The first four (out of only five) paragraphs of your post castigate the ELF.  While I highly question the potential effectiveness of these actions and think that they might be more counter-productive than anything, I have a much bigger problem with those who destroy the Earth than with those trying to stop them.

The real villains here are the targets of the actions, not those who are fighting for the Earth.  Each target got what he or she deserved regarding the actions.

I also couldn't disagree more with your assertion that "[t]o deem one's cause more worthy than a living, breathing human being is the ultimate in jackassery."  The Earth and its ecosystems are more important than any number of people.  Even if you think that people are the most important thing in the universe, what if the cause is saving more people than would be harmed by the human that you are so willing to protect?  Would you object to killing Hitler if you knew it had a good chance of saving millions of people?  Your statement evinces a highly anti-environmental position.

I also strongly disagree that "destroying people's stuff is also jackassery."  Not necessarily.  If that stuff is environmentally destructive, what's the problem with destroying it?  I'm not talking strategically, just ideologically.

We clearly have very different priorities in life.  Mine are the Earth and everything on Her; yours seem to be human centered.  Regardless of those differences, I see no reason to bash those fighting for the Earth, even if you disagree with their methods.

Jeff Hoffman

The Corporate Media

The commercial press does NOT exist primarily to provide news; it exists primarily to provide profits to its owners.  Those owners do not allow articles or columns that offend advertisers.  Therefore, you will not see commercial papers or TV advocating, for example, that people get out of their cars and use another means of transit (or organize their lives so that they live near work, shopping, school, etc.) in order to save the planet.  It's just not in their myopic, selfish interest to disparage the oil companies and auto manufacturers who have ads in their papers or on their networks.

If people realize that the commercial press is mostly a combination of propaganda and distractions, we might start getting some public consciousness about what's really going on.  You certainly should not expect those who profit from destroying the Earth to begin helping us to stop that destruction, and that includes the commercial media.

Jeff Hoffman

Recycled Crap

This recycling-is-actually-worse-for-the-environment B.S. is an old lie put out by the extractive industries that stand to benefit by consumption of raw materials (i.e., ecological destruction).  When I worked in the SF Greenpeace office (around 1985), I had to talk the office director into using recycled paper, because he believed the industry lies that recycling was worse for the environment.  The good news is that after I produced documentation showing how much energy and raw materials were saved by recycling, he let me choose the paper for the entire office!  I used that opportunity to choose 100% recycled, unbleached paper, and that paper was used until the closing of that office.

Jeff Hoffman

Finally!

Disallowing private motor vehicles in downtown?  That was my idea about 25 years ago, though I would keep them out of the entire city.  However, this is a great start.  I also like mixed income housing, which was the idea of one of my distant relatives in the 1940s, though Chicago rejected his idea in favor of high rise low income housing (Cabrini Green, etc.).  Low income projects create slum conditions, mixed income housing will prevent that housing from becoming slums.  Many great ideas here.  It seems that at least some humans are evoloving, even if it's taken what seems like forever.

Jeff Hoffman

Support Higher Gas Taxes!

Biod's comments says it all:  "People will not continue to buy gas at a high price."  That's precisely the idea of a gas tax, to cause people to drive less or, even better, not at all.  Also, it could be mandated that the tax goes toward undoing some of the harms caused by driving, such as restoration work in areas that were destroyed by oil drilling or road building.

Amazing, you forget that ending subsidies WOULD be a tax increase, because driving is highly subsidized.  If people had to pay for all of the infrastructure needed to support driving, gasoline would probably be $5-10/gallon.  If they had to pay for all of the environmental damage that driving causes -- to the extent it can be fixed with money -- you can add at least another $5, which would make gas $10-15/gallon.

Jeff Hoffman

"If You Want Depressing"

Look at what humans have done to the Earth and its species!

Jeff Hoffman

Eye Of The Beholder

Louis, maybe unnatural industrial things like windmills and oil rigs don't bother you, but they're not natural and have no place in any natural area.  Your statements show an extreme disconnection from nature.

Fiver is correct: lower your energy use and, I would add, population.  Don't destroy more of the natural world in a never ending search for more energy to power more needless crap.On RFK Jr. and other prominent enviros face off over Cape Cod wind farm posted 3 years, 10 months ago 57 Responses

Why Repeat These Lies?

"Wind power is at least twice as expensive as power from conventional sources."  I think any ten year old could figure out how impossible that is.  How could a source of energy that only requires machines being built and placed somewhere be anywhere near as expensive as a source requiring a constant source of something extracted from the Earth, transported, refined, and transported again, like oil or uranium?  This kind of crap is so ludicrous it's comical.

Jeff Hoffman

Overfishing

Amazing: I am totally opposed to industrial fishing and eat only fish OK'd by the Monterey Aquarium.  http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/seafoodwatch.asp  I suggest everyone else do the same.

Creating a barrier that prevents industrial fishing would be a good thing, but that still leaves the harm caused by destroying a natural area with a windfarm.  I don't know how else to communicate this, but my spirituality tells me that all natural areas are sacred and that everything, including the water, air, and sky, is alive.  I could thus never support something like this.  I unequivocally oppose all industrial projects in any natural area.

I also strongly disagree with all the hysteria about global warming.  I'm really sick of saying this, but global warming is NOT the most important environmental issue - extinctions and ecosystem destruction are far more destructive - and we should be opposing the cause of air pollution, not its symptom of global warming.On RFK Jr. and other prominent enviros face off over Cape Cod wind farm posted 3 years, 10 months ago 57 Responses

Project Modifications

I was mistaken.  Considering that RFK is associated with a very conservative enviro group (NRDC), I should have known that he opposed the project for the wrong reasons.  He wants to site it FURTHER offshore?!  To hell with that!  It should be sited onshore, where only the humans who benefit from generation of unnatural energy will suffer the consequences.  No wind farms in natural areas!  Put them right where the energy is being used, not where the rest of the Earth has to suffer because humans lost our way long ago.On RFK Jr. and other prominent enviros face off over Cape Cod wind farm posted 3 years, 10 months ago 57 Responses

Meaning Of All This

"Yet does any of this mean anything at all?"  Not really.  Processed food is unhealthy, period.  Sure, things like chips can be made to be more or less unhealthy, but people don't eat those "foods" with a consideration toward health.  We eat them because those things unnaturally overstimulate our taste buds, causing our brains to crave them while our bodies simultaneously abhor them.  Of course, you can always buy organic chips from health food stores if you're worried about this trans fats or the like.

Jeff Hoffman

Right On!

Good work, Eric.  I've thought lawns should be eliminated ever since I compared Phoenix, where people waste mucho water in an extremely arid area by watering lawns, to Tucson, where people have cacti instead of lawns.  Outlaw watering and you get rid of non-native grasses.  Of course, you have the opposite climate in Seattle.

Jeff Hoffman

Very Well Articulated Biod

I agree with everything in your last post.  My only problem with hunters who hike etc. is guns, which are just another disgusting part of industrialized society.

Jeff Hoffman

I Agree

Buy all the produce possible from farmers' markets and stick to organic.  It's an extra effort, but so's anything worthwhile.

Jeff Hoffman

Leave It Alone!

"[W]ho will pay the costs of preserving habitat and managing fish and wildlife?"

The Earth and wildlife do just fine without human intervention, thank you.  The only thing humans need to do is to restore areas or wildlife that they've harmed.  The more natural an area is, the less management is needed.

Re hunters, I find people shooting guns not only unnatural, but a major disturbance of my wilderness or wildlife experiences.  Yes, it's only natural to eat hunted or fished meat, but until hunters restrict themselves to pre-industrial weapons such as bows and arrows, they'll never have my support.

Jeff Hoffman

Anthropocentric Hubris

It's absurd to think that only humans teach each other.  Many animals do this.  The prevailing idiocy that humans are so much smarter than other forms of life is undoubtedly responsible for statements like this is "the first proof of teaching among non-human animals."

Jeff Hoffman

Nature & Science

"How do we conceive of nature and humanity, environmentalism itself, without the supernatural?"

I didn't articulate my thoughts properly in a post awhile ago about evolution and intelligent design, and I would replace the term "supernatural" with something else.  However, there are questions that simply can't be answered by science, such as why our hearts beat.  It's obvious to me that there's something in of every bit of the universe, and it's what some call god.  The movie "One" explains this concept far better than I can here.  Problems arise when people who believe in god start thinking that some things are godless.

Jeff Hoffman

CR Inappropriate Source For Enviros

Pretty good article overall, but a couple of statements damn it:

1. "While some buy organic to support its producers' environmentally friendly practices, most are trying to cut their exposure to chemicals in the foods they eat."  Maybe.  First, where's the evidence?  Second, if true, more people should be encouraged to support environmentally friendly practices, not slough them off as this article does.

2. "[Y]ou can skip organic asparagus and broccoli because conventional varieties generally have undetectable pesticide levels."  Disgusting comment, again sloughing off environmental concerns.  No, a decent human being would not skip organic anything, because of the environmental damage that non-organic farming does.  Pesticide residues on food are only one consideration.

Jeff Hoffman

Not Mutually Exclusive

Jda, you're right that those things waste a lot of fuel, but driving does, too.  I don' just advocate that people give up gas guzzlers, but that they arrange their lives so that they don't drive much or at all.  Suburbs should be bulldozed.  Either live in cities, from which private motor vehicles should be banished, or in the country without a motor vehicle.  (Hey, I can dream!)

Jeff Hoffman

And You've Provided...

a perfect example of why some people are misanthropes.  If you don't care about other creatures, I certainly don't care about you!

Jeff Hoffman

On Visual Blight And Noise

Humans aren't the only ones living here, HELLOOO!  The birds and fish shouldn't have to put up with noise or ruined views, either.  Again, no wind farms, just local power supplied by solar or wind for each building.

Jeff Hoffman

Well...

I agree with Kennedy.  Industrial noise and sound, along with destruction of natural views, are also environmental harms.  Instead of advocating for these harms to reduce the harms caused by overpopulation and overconsumption of energy, we should advocate fixing those two roots of the problem.  Even if you want to attack the symptoms, solar panels on every roof and/or a windmill in every backyard (or on every parking lot if it's a commercial property) would be a far better solution.  Projects that require lots of windmills destroying natural areas, or that require power lines, are not environmentally friendly by any definition.

Also, global warming is not the most pressing environmental issue.  Extinction and destruction of ecosystems are far more urgent.  While global warming could contribute to these, it would not be a major cause.

Jeff Hoffman

The Legal Mess

Daniel:  First, you must understand that judges often rule based on their ideologies, not on the law.  A colleague (I'm a lawyer) once told me that when she clerked for a 9th Circuit justice, he would often decide the case first, then ask her to find law to support his opinion.  Of course, this is not how the system's supposed to work, but it's how it often does.

Second, I suggest reading what Earthjustice has to say http://www.earthjustice.org/  Earthjustice is an environmental law firm and is far more credible on these matters than a right wing publication like National Review.

Finally, what it boils down to is this:  Which rights do you think should have priority, environmental rights or property rights?  Sometimes they can co-exist, but often they're mutually exclusive.

(Sorry, but I don't have time to read the cases and dissect them for you.  Cases are ususally rather lengthy.  I can tell you that Alito is a real pig and would be a disaster on the Supreme Court, along the lines of Clarence (Uncle) Thomas and Antonin Scalia.)

Jeff Hoffman

Tammany Hall

Sounds like a rehashing of an old book that we read in Poli Sci over 30 years ago, about events around the late 19th-early 20th century.  Nothing new here.

Jeff Hoffman

Not A Credible Story

Or, at least, it's inaccurate.  TRADITIONAL indigenous people live in harmony with the land and don't need to be evicted in order to create preserves.  All that's needed is to keep modern humans away.  Of course, merely because a person is indigenous doesn't mean that he or she lives traditionally.  There's no reason that non-traditional indigenous people should receive any special concern; they're just as capable of destorying the Earth as non-indigenous people.

Jeff Hoffman

Human Nature

Other than biological imperatives, no one has ever proven any aspects of "human nature."  This term is merely used by those who wish to promote or object to certain policies or laws.  Re the subject we're discussing, the vast majority of people on Earth don't own cars.  Your point of view is greatly skewed because we live in a country made up of people who vastly overconsume everything and who live in opulence compared to everyone else.

As to your saying that advocating for people to simplify their lifestyles and consume less will "never sell," that's what people say when they object to the idea being advocated themselves.  From reading your posts, my conclusion is that you are one of those enviros who wants to continue with our overconsumptive lifestyles but thinks we can do it without harming the environment, because some magical technological solution will save us.  This is delusion and self denial.  Either humans go back to living in harmony with nature or we will surely destroy the vast majority of plants and animals on the planet.

Jeff Hoffman

Natural v. Unnatural Transportation

If you want to walk, be as individualist as you wish.  However, when using industrial methods of travel, travel by private motor vehicle should be discouraged as much as possible.

Enough talk of "liberty" or "freedom" to the exclusion of all else.  Liberty or freedom to do what, destroy the Earth?  Freedoms must be limited due to their effects on others, including non-humans.  Libertarians are nothing but immature people who haven't learned that their precious freedoms are harmful to others.

Jeff Hoffman

Put Another Way

An MD told me about 20 years ago that the human race fits the medical definition of being a cancerous tumor on the planet.  I've never heard anyone even attempt an argument to the contrary.

Jeff Hoffman

Actually ...

Humans evoloved in the tropical savanna, which is why we don't have fur.  People do a lot of environmental destruction by living where it's cold, especially now that we don't keep warm naturally, but use coal, uranium, and gas.  Odograph, you inadvertently point out another of the many harms caused by overpopulation, which is thought to be why some people left the tropics.

Jeff Hoffman

Liberty v. Security

Unfortunately, the majority view in this country seems to be that of pkbw, as much as it thoroughly disgusts me.

Hey pk, guess what: you wouldn't have to deal with bin Laden et al if your country didn't destroy their societies, and your country wouldn't have done it if the people here didn't insist on consuming so much that the U.S. military is sent to fight for it, starting with oil.

Jeff Hoffman

You Don't Need To Worship Animals

Just respect their right to live as much as you do your own.

Jeff Hoffman

Typical Alaskans

Unfortunately, most people who move to Alaska do so to make money.  All Alaskans receive a yearly check (or is it monthly, I can't remember?) from the oil industry, so there is a standing bribe offered to sell their souls.  Perhaps we should start a campaign to get enviros to move to Alaska in droves until they outnumber the oil whores, then throw the bums out!

Jeff Hoffman

What About High Mileage Drivers

I'm all for charging people more if they drive more (anything to discourage driving), but why would someone who drives a lot sign up for that type of insurance?

Jeff Hoffman

And Another Thing

To complete my last post:  Saving ANWR from destruction by the oil industry is far more important than who gets how many green pieces of paper.  My definition of an environmentalist is someone who gives the environment priority over other issues, not someone who finds reasons to place environmental concerns behind them.  Ask the birds and trees if they give a damn about a budget bill!  (And yes, I hate the Republican pigs who are stealing from the poor to give to the rich, but concerns of some members of an overpopulated species are nowhere near as important as the rest of the planet.)

Jeff Hoffman

What To Do

"I'm not sure what I should do, as an environmental activist who cares deeply about labor issues."  You should decide what your priority is and make a decision.  Which is more important to you, the Earth, or how many little green pieces of paper certain individuals are able to accumulate.

Disclaimer:  I strongly oppose labor when it pulls crap like derailing environmental legislation, as it did with this bill.

Jeff Hoffman

What I've Been Saying All Along

This is exactly what I've been saying ever since I've been posting here.  There are no magical solutions to anything.  The only real solution to problems caused by overconsumption (which include problems caused by consuming things we shouldn't be consuming at all, like oil) is to stop consuming.  We should be advocating for a major simplification of lifestyles, not material enrichment of people at the expense of the planet and those people who live naturally (i.e., traditional indigenous people).

Tha

Jeff Hoffman

The Rest Of The Story

Whether higher oil prices are good for the Earth depends on how high those prices are.  In the first place, the U.S. actually has very low oil prices.  Even after Katrina, U.S. gasoline was only about half of what the rest of the world pays.  In the second place, if prices were actually high, say $10/gallon for gasoline, people would drive a lot less and some would give up driving altogether.  This would cause both much lower consumption of oil which in turn would lower demand for more hideously destructive oil drilling, and much less pollution from burning petroleum products.

However, if prices are only slightly raised, as is currently the case and as is analyzed here, then the economic factors described will take over and there will be no help for the Earth.

Jeff Hoffman

The Slower It's Used ...

the less pollution is emitted.  In other words, emitting X amount of certain pollutants over one year is a lot more harmful than emitting the same amount over a longer period of time.  Not exactly rocket science.

Jeff Hoffman

Feingold Is Probably A Better Choice ...

though one would have to research their voting records.  Obama opposed removing the troops from Iraq and wants to build bases there (he has a fanatic "support the troops" attitude with which I strongly disagree), which alone precludes any support from me.

Jeff Hoffman

Well...

since no one else answered, I guess my answer is the winner, at least at Grist.

Speaking for the Earth and life in general, my nomination is agriculture.  When humans all lived as hunter/gatherers, there were only 10 million people on the whole planet.  Not only does agriculture replace the naturally growing plants with ones that humans like, it has also caused or allowed massive human overpopulation and societies that stay in one place, which in turn allows very destructive activities like mining and building permanent artificial structures that cover the Earth.  Agriculture, including animal husbandry, itself is also very destructive.

Jeff Hoffman

A Higher Gas Tax ...

that causes significantly higher gas prices is a much better solution.

Jeff Hoffman

Blaming Environmentalists ...

for problems for which we're not responsible seems to be rather popular and has been going on for awhile.  This is the same idiocy that blames us because certain groups of people, such as non-whites in the U.S., don't participate in environmental matters.  (The blame about non-whites proved false when we made affirmative efforts to include people of color, but learned that they considered other problems, such as poverty and racism, to be more urgent and/or important and thus were not interested enough in environmental matters to get involved.)

Jeff Hoffman

Wrong Premise

"Whether sufficient costly technology can be brought to bear quickly enough to both allow the high rates of economic growth to continue and to begin to compensate for all the environmental degradation that has already taken place is one of the most important questions China faces."?  Excuse me, but how does more environmentally destructive, Earth consuming technology "compensate" for overconsumption?  Overconsumption and overpopulation cannot be fixed except by cessation.

Jeff Hoffman

Why Predictions Often Fail

Predictions are, at best, educated guesses.  Regardless of how educated one is, there are so many variables in life that the variable(s) that cause a certain result are often not considered.  That said, where is the evidence supporting the assertion made by the author or by Dave?  It's hard to believe that an educated guess is no better than an uninformed one.

Jeff Hoffman

Bottom Lines

"[I]t all comes down to whose predictions you want to believe."  Or, to what one's priorities are.

Also, I am unapologetically anti-growth.  The human race has grown far too much.  It's way past time for some contraction, not growth.

Jeff Hoffman

Runaway Intellect

"[A]ren't the equations and graphs cool?"  No, they are the result of the worst aspect of the human mind: overemphasis on the intellectual with no wisdom or intuition for guidance.  (Before you go off, I'm not saying that the intellectual part of the mind is evil per se, but that it must be guided by wisdom and intuition or it's like a runaway train.)  As Mike said, we shouldn't be hyping hybrids as money savers, but as something that does less enviromental harm than vehicles that get lower mileage.

Jeff Hoffman

Seattle Climate

You left the east coast for warmer weather and moved to Seattle?  Try at least 1,000 miles south of where you're at.  The climate of Seattle is that of a temperate rainforest, the worst weather I can imagine (it's cold AND rainy in the winter; better to get a little colder and snow).

Jeff Hoffman

And The Conclusion Is ...

BioD, you've just made an excellent argument against the human race, assuming that people everywhere would make the same choice as those in Pakistan, where the Sole reactor is.

Humans are only one of millions of species on Earth.  By what right do humans contaminate our atmosphere - and by "our," I mean the atmosphere of all species and of the land, air, and water - just to get this unnatural energy called electricity?  If humans want to poison themselves, that's their right and choice, but they have no right to poison everyone else.  The good (producing electricity, making money, whatever) does NOT outweigh the bad (poisoning the planet) for anyone but humans, just the opposite.  There is no good except for that realized by some humans.

Jeff Hoffman

Predictions ...

are often wrong.  There are many variables in life, and unforeseen ones often dictate what happens.  That said, it doesn't seem to me that the people writing this stuff understand what "peak oil" means.  It does NOT mean that we will run out of oil or that there will be shortages.  It means that oil will become harder to find and extract, so that the price of it will rise very rapidly and by large amounts.  There will be plenty of oil for those who are willing and able to pay for it.

Regarding making oil out of coal, it's hard to believe that there's enough coal around to make oil AND to continue to be used for burning.  Do the authors of the article have any statistical evidence for this assertion?

Jeff Hoffman

Pretty Awful, Really

The Digg site had a lot of posts about how humans can further destroy the Earth to get more oil instead of discussing how we can replace oil with a less environmentally harmful fuel and simplify our lives to stop driving so much to begin with.  Whether the posters knew what they were talking about is a minor detail compared to their anti-environmental attitude.

Jeff Hoffman

Less Driving

"Because Wal-Mart sells EVERYTHING won't we do less driving overall because we will be buying more things in one centralized location?"

No.  You would do less driving if you arranged your life so that you live near work, shoppiing, and school, and walk, bike, or take public transit.  Wal-Mart destroys open space to build disgusting monstrosities with obnoxiously large parking lots.  There is nothing environmentally good about this company.  The best thing that Wal-Mart could do for the Earth would be to get off of her.On New Wal-Mart documentary may be a sign of upheavals to come posted 4 years ago 7 Responses

Hillary Clinton

Speaking strictly tactically, I think the right's bashing of Hillary Clinton is a brilliant tactic.  The Clintons are right wing Democrats who are socially liberal.  (Right wing means support of those with power.  The terms "right" and "left" referring to political affiliations come from "righthanded" and "lefthanded," the former being a far higher percentage of the human population, and thus having much more power.)

The Clintons are very pro-corporate, so they don't threaten the power elite.  Hillary is even pro-Iraq war.  By portraying Hillary Clinton as some raging commie or whatever, the right makes a right wing Democrat seem as if she's way off the radar by being too far to the left.  This has the effect of portraying actual liberal Democrats or more progressive types like Greens as extreme radicals who aren't even worth listening to.

Jeff Hoffman

Not Much There

I watched the entire two hours of the special.  While I enjoyed some of it - Bill Maher was by far the best, for both laughs and commentary - I saw nothing telling people what to do or, more importantly, to stop doing, to reverse the human factors causing global warming, including no talk about curtailing excessive driving or energy use, which are the most important things we can do as individuals.  Instead, the show just asked people to visit a website.  Yeah, that'll really help.On Comedian Larry David chats about making global warming funny posted 4 years ago 5 Responses

Incorrect Focus & Framing

"[S]ome kind of poke at the eco-messengers and how hypocritical they are for not living in huts in the woods [] is what the green movement gets for making personal environmental virtue such an obsessive focus."

NO!!!  This is what people who advocate for certain things get when they act hypocritically by failing to make sacrifices they expect of others and fail to take responsibility for their own actions.  I don't advocate that we obsess on personal responsibility and sacrifice, but those things certainly must be a large part of any real environmental solutions, along with much better laws with strong enforcement until people show that the laws and enforcement are no longer needed.  Laws alone will not solve problems, because there is no way to force enough people to do the right things.

Jeff Hoffman

"We'll have to make some compromises"

Here's a compromise "we" should make: everyone, including businesses, should be strictly limited in the amount of gasoline or diesel fuel used for transportation and the amount of energy used for buildings, unless that energy comes from renewables like solar.  However, no enviro worth his or her salt should be willing to compromise the natural environment for idiotic human luxuries.  As we say in Earth First!, "No Compromise in Defense of Mother Earth."

Jeff Hoffman

Outlawed!

A couple of friends built a house in California 100 miles north of San Francisco (Mendocino County).  They were told by the county that they were legally required to have a flush toilet in order for the house to be up to code.

This is disgusting!  What should be outlawed is flush toilets, which waste five gallons of water with every flush.  Instead, our highly anti-environmental society actually requires these wasteful toilets, and does so in an arid part of the country that can't support the number of people living here now, even if they did't waste water.  Talk about assbackwards!On Umbra on composting toilets, again posted 4 years ago 7 Responses

Re Bets

I bet they drill in ANWR and sell public lands to destructive industries, eventually anyway.

Jeff Hoffman

Relativity

Pombo is the worst of the worst, the most ecologically harmful and dangerous person in Congress.  He represents an area about 80 miles east of San Francisco in the San Joaquin Valley.  Outside of our own districts, enviros nationally should target him for removal next year, which should be a top electoral priority.On Mining-law revamp could put millions of public acres up for sale posted 4 years ago 4 Responses

Don't Forget ...

to include things like bombing countries and killing unarmed civilians in the definition of "terrorism."  Personally, I don't like the word.  Because of the way it's been used, it has no more meaning than calling someone an asshole.  Remember, one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.  A much better approach would be to articulate complaints about people or groups instead of name calling.

Jeff Hoffman

The Amazing Thing Is ...

that Americans allowed Congress to impeach Clinton over a lie about a personal matter.  This administration lied about going to war, and now these scumbags lie about energy policy, which affects all of us and the environment, too.

If Clinton could be impeached for his lie, everyone in the Bush administration who was part of promoting the WMD lie, and the oil execs who lied to Congress about whether they were on the task force, should all be imprisoned.  However, neither of these things is likely to happen, showing that the American people have very screwed up priorities.On Oil execs lied to Congress posted 4 years ago 2 Responses

I've Got A Better Idea

Let's just remove those hideous oil and gas rigs, tank farms, and refineries from the Gulf altogether.  As an environmentalist, I'm not interested in "secure[ing] the oil and gas infrastructure [from] future catastrophes."  I'm interested in protecting areas like the Gulf of Mexico from any more massive ecological destruction, such as that caused by the oil and gas industries there, and restoring the Gulf to its pre-industrial conditions.  Removing the offending structures would go a long way toward accomplishing those goals.On Kabuki posted 4 years ago 5 Responses

Companies Like Wal-Mart ...

can never be green.  One of Wal-Mart's greatest sins is that it destroys undeveloped land to build stores with huge parking lots and entices people to drive many miles to shop at those stores instead of shopping locally.  This is not to say that Wal-Mart can't do less environmental harm than it's now doing while still earning the same profit, but we shouldn't be fooled into thinking that any business that destroys open space, encourages extra driving, or encourages needless consumption can be a green business.On Two books explore the perks and perils of corporate social responsibility posted 4 years ago 3 Responses

Well, If You Have A Viable Counter-Argument ...

make it, instead of your put down that makes no argument at all.On Uh oh posted 4 years ago 8 Responses

Dave's Not Right

Dave is wrong in three ways.

1. High gas prices would certainly reduce driving.  The higher the prices, the more reduction would be realized.  It's not just a matter of afforability.  People would choose not to drive in order to have money for other things;

2. Truly poor people, like those in New Orleans who couldn't get out before Katrina, don't own cars; and

3. Whether to live near a job is a choice, as are all other things in life except dying.  Some choices are extremely difficult, some extremely easy or even automatic, most are in between.  The people I've met or know who commute long distances by car are upper middle class to upper class, with the exception of one person who is middle class.  The somewhat poor people I know, who comprise the majority of people I know, don't commute long distances.  The one who does takes public transportation.

All Mining Is Ecologically Destructive

"Mining, as it is currently practiced, is so ecologically disastrous there are too many examples of environmental degradation to mention here."  Removing the phrase "as it is currently practiced" would make this sentence more accurate.On Public lands: Mine, all mine posted 4 years ago 1 Response

Let's Reframe This

"Eco-terrorists have never killed or even hurt anybody."  This statement is not true.  The real ecoterrorists are the people who destroy the Earth.  They've done an immense amount of killing, including humans.

On the other hand, if a terrorist is a person who kills or injures unarmed civilians in order to make a political point, then there's no such thing as an eco-terrorist.On CBS fills Sunday-night hackery gap left by FOX posted 4 years ago 4 Responses

Survey Says ...

"How strongly do greens stand with the progressive coalition?"  As strogly as they stand with us and the Earth.  For example, if unions are going to continue doing things like killing solar panel legislation or supporting drilling in ANWR, then there's no reason to support them.

On the other hand, it would be much better stragegically to form coalitions.  The problem is, whenever a conflict of issues arises, I don't see anyone being willing to sacrifice or even compromise for the environment, including some self described environmentalists.On Divide and conquer? posted 4 years ago 2 Responses

Newsom's Not So Green

He supported raising public transit fares instead of finding the needed money elsewhere, like the downtown businesses that benefit from our public transit but pay little in return, or higher parking fines, which might actually get some people out of their cars and onto public transit.

Driving is one of the most environmentally destructive things a person can do, so this is a much bigger deal than any of the stuff that Newsom does to look good for outsiders who don't know what really goes on here.  His opponent in the last election, Matt Gonzales, would have been much better environmentally.On The greening of San Fran posted 4 years ago 4 Responses

This Is Exactly What They Want

Once enough of the Earth is contaminated with this Frankencrap, no one will bother trying to avoid it, because it will be impossible to do so.On The WSJ documents GM contamination posted 4 years ago 2 Responses

Great Idea ...

but where will you put those animals?  The U.S. is so grossly overpopulated that wherever they used to live isn't there anymore.

RE the aminal rightser, you've got to be kidding!  Individuals are more important than species?!  I know you people can be illogical, but this takes the cake.On How a plan to return big beasts to North America raised hackles and hopes posted 4 years ago 4 Responses

My Dairy Opinions

First, I want to commend you for at least farming organically.  Second, I hope you don't take my comments personally: the economics of this society are based on destroying the Earth, so the vast majrority of people have jobs that do just that.  So, this is not an attack on you.  That said, here are the reasons that I think dairy products are harmful:

1. It is unnatural for anyone but babies to drink milk, and the only natural kind comes from their mothers;
   
2. It is unnatural, and harmful to the animal's babies, to take milk from an animal that's meant for her babies;
   
3. Most of the world (the pre-European Americas, Austrailia, Asia except for India and the mountainous regions north of there) do not traditionally eat dairy.  Dairy is just another bad thing brought here from Europe;
   
4. Dairy is medically harmful to many people and is unhealthy for everyone.  For example, some people have a natural lactose intolerance, some get ear infections from dairy.  (I personally got frequent earaches as a child, because my parents made me drink mild daily.  Unfortunately, it was unknown at the time that the dairy causes ear infections, so they removed my tonsils, a common solution at the time!)  The reason that dairy is generally unhealthy is because it is far too rich, a quality only needed by babies and harmful to adults in general, especially the vast majority in this society who have sedentary lives.

Fear Begets Much Evil

Michale Moore asserted in his Columbine movie that because Americans are more fearful, they're more violent.  I'd never thought about that before, but I think he's right.On SUVs are about perceived safety, not actual safety posted 4 years, 1 month ago 2 Responses

Oxymoron Is Correct!

I'm with John on this one.  Saying that Walmart "is, for good or ill, here [to stay]" is defeatist.  I'm sure that's exactly what Walmart wants people to say and think.  The fact is that unsustainable things like Walmart will be gone long before sustainable ones.On Makower thinks the retail giant might just be turning over a new leaf posted 4 years, 1 month ago 10 Responses

Petroleum v. Veggie Oil

Taking crude oil from beneath the Earth's surface, refining it, and burning it is far more ecologically damaging than making fuel from plants.  Why don't you get how unnatural, and therefore, ecologically destructive petroleum products are?  If you want to protect wilderness and biodiversity, what about ANWR and all the public lands that the fascists in the administration want to use for oil extraction?

On the other hand, I agree that getting massive amounts of fuel from veggies would also be ecologically destructive.  The roots of this problem are our unnatural industrial lifestyles, overpopulation, and agriculture, the last of which allows the first two.  I'll say it again, ad nauseum: the only way to stop destroying the natural environment is to greatly lower our population and simplify our lifestyles.  There will be no magic solution that will allow people to have their modern, unnatural lifestyles while protecting the planet.On Oil spiel posted 4 years, 1 month ago 2 Responses

Environmental Issues Are Social Issues?

Yeah, and black is white.  Of course there's some overlap but, no, environmental and social issues are distinctly different.  To use this article as an example, the rate of pay and benefits received by workers is a social issue.  Whether the Earth is poisoned by pesticides is an environmental issue.  The overlap is that people, mostly farmworkers, who are very underpaid, will also be affected by pesticide use.

I never said that I don't care about social issues.  I've marched in many anti-war demos and have fought with anti-racist groups.  I also donate to abortion rights groups, though the issue of womens' rights to decide about their own bodies and preventing unwanted pregnancies in order to reduce human population overlap.  I also believe we should try to work with non-environmental groups in alliances.  However, as an enviro, the environment is my strong priority.

My original point, which obviously hit a nerve with some, was that this is supposed to be an enviro blog, not a leftist one.  There are conservative and even right wing enviros, though I'm not one of them.  There has been far too much emphasis on social issues on a blog that's supposed to be enviromental.On Organic farms don't treat workers any better than other farms posted 4 years, 1 month ago 6 Responses

And Dave Said ...

we have no sense of humor!On Are we headed for peak pony? posted 4 years, 1 month ago 2 Responses

Organic Is Still Better For Workers

It seems that your Leftist leanings have blinded you to the fact that workers on an organic farm are not subjected to the petroleum based pesticides that those on farms using those pesticides are.  This is supposed to be an environmetal blog; how about concentrating on environmental issues instead of social ones?On Organic farms don't treat workers any better than other farms posted 4 years, 1 month ago 6 Responses

What's Left Out?

Jeez, this is supposed to be an environmental blog.  How about discussing the environmental destruction that driving causes that is avoided by taking public transit?On Society still subsidizes the cost of driving posted 4 years, 1 month ago 1 Response

Stentor

If you're going to critique a court decision, learn the law, then read the decision.  Have you done either?  What does Oregon's Constitution say on this subject, and how has it been interpreted?On Oregon anti-land-use-planning measure ruled unconstitutional posted 4 years, 1 month ago 2 Responses

Incorrect Basic Premise

While what the excerpt from Lambert's column says is correct, the basic premise of the Right's point is totally flawed.  Unfortunately, the Left holds the same basic premise: humans are the end all and be all of creation, so it's OK to poison the planet to save some of them, even though humans are grossly overpopulated.

Not only is this premise morally reprehensible, it's not even true.  Regardless of how much one wishes to worship the human race, we would not be here if not for the web of life to which we belong.  It is thus self destructive to poison the Earth.  A much more environmentally correct point of view is that it's NEVER OK to poison the planet, and that all pesticides should therefore be eliminated.On DDT myths posted 4 years, 1 month ago 1 Response

Stop All Defecit Timber Sales?

All logging on federal land is done by deficit timber sales.  So, we should hope for a federal government poor enough so that they have no money whatsoever for logging.On Tight federal budget prevents old-growth timber sales posted 4 years, 1 month ago 1 Response

"Foreign Aid"

The true definition of "foreign aid" is poor people in rich countries sending money to rich people in poor countries.  Until we root out most or all of the corrupt politicians on both sides, foreign aid will not accomplish anything significant.On Most U.S. food aid goes up in smoke posted 4 years, 1 month ago 1 Response

Not Mutually Exclusive

If one advocates for more stronger environmental laws, one would be a hypocrite to not live in the manner advocated for others.  I agree that we should have much better enviro laws, but totally disagree that it's OK for individuals to be environmentally irresponsible.On Personal virtue is not enough for environmentalists posted 4 years, 1 month ago 1 Response

Intelligent Strategies

The fact that SUVs comprise 25% of the vehicles in the U.S. (!) "doesn't mean SUV deflations are a bad idea in America."  I agree.  What would make them a bad idea is if they would be counterproductive.  When monkeywrenching, always consider ALL likely effects, including political backlash.  While viscerally this sounds great, Americans' worship of property rights and extreme love of their material possessions could cause average people to become even more hostile than they already are toward environmental concerns.

That said, if you think this would have an overall positive environmental effect, I'm certainly not condemning it.  (I won't publicly advocate breaking the law for legal reasons.)On French SUV-haters deflate gas-guzzling tires posted 4 years, 1 month ago 2 Responses

At Least As Bad ...

was pumping contaminated water into Lake Pontchartrain, but I didn't hear Pope or anyone else complaining about that.  Only when humans are directly at risk will these people speak up.  Well, if you don't care about the Earth, why should it care about you, whether you're rich, poor, or in between?On Burning in New Orleans posted 4 years, 1 month ago 2 Responses

Good Art

If one defnies "art" generally,  "Lord of the Rings" was a great series of movies, and its underlying theme was that industrial society is evil, environmentally speaking.  Unfortunately, most people probably know nothing about Tolkien, so the theme is lost on them.

BTW, IMHO, "The Silmarillion" was Tolkien's best work.  He spent his entire life writing it, though it's much shorter than LOTR.  If you want to know how he really felt about humans, read that one, though be forewarned that it's not an easy read and the beginning reads like the Old Testament.On The Daily Show goes green posted 4 years, 1 month ago 8 Responses

Fixing The ESA

Less than a decade after the ESA was enacted, it was significantly weakened by an amendment commonly referred to as the Habitat Conservation Plan.  This amendment allows destruction of some habitat of a listed species if the landowner agrees not to destroy other habitat on part of his or her land.  Before the amendment, ALL of the land was protected.  So, the first reform of the ESA should be repeal of this 1982 loophole.On Enviros anxious as Senate gears up to reform Endangered Species Act posted 4 years, 1 month ago 3 Responses

You Just Don't Get It

From an ecological perspective, overpopulation is not just about resource depletion.  It's also about too many of a species, in this case humans, crowding out other species.  (It's also about other things, like a lowering of the quality of life for everyone, but that's not my main concern and I won't discuss that here.)  There's no way to mitigate this or change the laws of nature so that humans can continue to be overpopulated but allow other species to survive.  As I've stated many times on this blog, ecosystems need large areas of wilderness in order to be healthy, and there's no way for that to happen with anywhere near the current level of human population.

The problem is that people like you and Werbach are anthropocentric; you only care about people, or at least care far more about them than you do about the rest of the planet.  Not only do I consider this attitude to be highly immoral, the logical conclusion of a "humans first" policy would be the end of life as we know it.On Time to abandon the 'population' frame in favor of women's empowerment and sustainable development posted 4 years, 2 months ago 3 Responses

A Micro Biogrophy

Richard Pombo is a rancher -- one of the lowest forms of life in the universe -- and represents them and developers.  He is probably the most anti-environmental member of Congress, as evidenced by his newly bill that would partially repeal the Endangered Species Act.  People like him belong in prison, not in government.  The fact that he's a member of the latter is a perfect example of all that's wrong with this country.On Pombo proposes selling off nat'l parks posted 4 years, 2 months ago 4 Responses

Response To Earthy Mom

1. I used "they" instead of "we" because I don't support agricultural or industrial society, and I think it's no less than criminal to have more than two kids considering the extreme human overpopulation that exists.

2. The Earth would be far better off without humans, with the unlikely but possible exception that if humans greatly elevated their consciousness soon so that they 1) began limiting their families to one or no children, 2) began making ecological restoration and non-humans THE priority until such time as the planet is back in some semblance of ecological balance, and 3) gave up their materialistic, selfish, greedy ways and gave priority to all life instead of things like money and material goods, then we could possibly be more help than harm.

3. WE all assume that humans naturally occur, but I don't know.  I used to think that I must be from another planet, because I can't relate to the vast majority of people.  After reading "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I realized that it's probably the vast majority who aren't from here, which would explain why they care more about other things than the Earth or the life upon her.

No More Teamsters And Turtles

I consider the shameful demands by unions that caused the bill to fail in the Legislature to be another gauntlet thrown down at the feet of environmentalists by labor unions.  (The last memorable one was union support for drilling in ANWR.)

Well, if the unions want war with environmentalists, I for one will give it to them!  For starters, I plan to vote for Schwarzenegger's anti-union initiative that he placed on the ballot this November.  I used to be a strong union supporter (I even unionized a workplace once), but until unions stop putting their selfish concerns ahead of those of the planet, they have completely lost my support.  Everyone should be paid a living wage, but this legislation was no place to push that agenda, especially at the cost of losing the legislation.On California's Million Solar Roofs moving ahead, and setting pace for national climate action posted 4 years, 2 months ago 2 Responses

We Already Know ...

that neither FEMA nor the EPA give a damn about environmental concerns.  They've already pumped massive amounts of heavily polluted water into Lake Pontchartrain, and have tried to rebuild the very ecologically destructive levees that should never have been built to begin with.

All these jerks care about is oil and money, which they'll call "the economy" in order to pander to people's most selfish and materialistic instincts.  This is a perfect example of how people say they want more environmental regulation but don't give environmental concerns any priority, which is a current Grist story.On Blaming enviros for New Orleans is a clever government strategy posted 4 years, 2 months ago 3 Responses

You'll Change If You Have To

"[A] lot of us may be stuck in our cars no matter what gas prices do in the short term."

If gas cost $10 or $15/gallon, would you still live in a place and manner that required you to drive a lot?  I highly doubt it.  You're correct about land use, but I think people would flock to more environmentally correct places -- where they could get around with public transit, walking, and biking -- if the price of gas got high enough.  The only question is, how high does it need to get in order to precipitate or force this change?On Will transit ridership increase as gas prices continue to spike? posted 4 years, 2 months ago 1 Response

The Real Problem Is ...

that pesticides even exist.  You should be just as upset that they kill plants and animals, and poison them, the land, air, and water.On EPA loophole could allow pesticide testing on kids posted 4 years, 2 months ago 2 Responses

Failing Grade For LCV

How can they give her 100% when she voted for a war?!  War is bad for all species, and, the way it's been waged over the last 40 years, causes massive ecological destruction.On Green group makes early entry into 2006 election fight posted 4 years, 2 months ago 1 Response

Emitting Large Amounts ...

of unnatural air pollutants (or even unnaturally large amounts of natural pollutants, like carbon dioxide) will cause significant, negative effects.  This is an undebatable fact.  (Actually, carbon dioxide is a "pollutant" only from our point of view.  It's not a pollutant to plants.)  So, instead of obsessing on global warming, let's just advocate for zero air pollution.On How are journalists covering climate change in Katrina's wake? posted 4 years, 2 months ago 10 Responses

Preamble To Previous Post

Sorry, I'm rather upset right now and forgot to put this at the beginning of the last post.

I have three close friends who live(d) in New Orleans.  While they're now safe in Florida, they lost everything they couldn't take with, which is just about everything.  These are working class people who will have a very difficult time recovering.  While my wife and I are working class ourselves, we're sending them as much as we can afford.  I grieve for my friends and for New Orleans, a really cool town filled with really cool people.  That said, I stand by the previous post.On Rebuilding New Orleans posted 4 years, 2 months ago 3 Responses

Resources Are Not Infinite

We have to kill people in the Middle East for oil and don't have the resources to protect poor people here, and probably don't even want to.On Interview with mayor of New Orleans posted 4 years, 2 months ago 2 Responses

I've Got A Great Deal On A Bridge

"[O]ur efforts to fight terrorism and spread democracy"?  The U.S. military is used to make the world safe for American profits and cheap crap.  The U.S. is probably the biggest terrorist in the world.  We don't have anything approaching Democracy here (western Europe, for example, is much closer), and have never attempted to spread it anywhere that I'm aware of.On Are fuel-efficiency standards a smart way to reduce oil consumption? posted 4 years, 3 months ago 1 Response

Johnsonjt3, Why Are You Here?

This is an environmental blog.  Decreasing oil prices by building new refineries will just cause two forms of destruction: more consumption from lower prices and more destruction caused by additional refineries.  Cheap oil causes more environmental harm and should be strongly opposed here, not sought!On The latest solution to pumped-up prices posted 4 years, 3 months ago 11 Responses

I Vote For ...

getting rid of cars.On The latest solution to pumped-up prices posted 4 years, 3 months ago 11 Responses

"As for the inability of poor people ...

to afford organics":  In the U.S., except for extremely poor people, it's not an "inability," it's a question of priorities.  When I made only $6.50/hr driving a recycling truck and paid almost $400/month for rent, I still bought only organic.  I just didn't eat out much (almost never, and always cheaply when I did), and I used my imagination and friends for entertainment instead of wasting money on needless garbage.On Seriously, now -- why aren't organics getting affordable? posted 4 years, 3 months ago 18 Responses

Huh?

I think your ideology is totally blinding you.  I NEVER EVEN IMPLIED that killing trees was worse than drilling, trasporting, and refining oil.  They're equally bad, and supporting plastic is a highly anti-environmental position.  Nor did I even imply "that ultimately the real 'problem' is whether or not something will biodegrade at some point (plastic does biodegrade, though not as quickly as paper)."  There are many real problems, and whether something biodegrades and how long it takes to do so are just two of them.  As I said, killing trees and the destruction caused by making plastic are others.

Like I said, carrry cloth bags and containers for bulk foods.  If I had my way, the bag and container industries would be eliminated.  They're totally unecessary and very environmentally destructive.On Umbra on personal actions that make a real difference posted 4 years, 3 months ago 11 Responses

You Don't Understand ...

why plastic is evil?  Try destruction of natural habitats like ANWR to drill the oil, oil spills that occur daily turning our water into oil slicks, air, water, and noise pollution from transporting the oil, and the ecological sacrifice zones called refineries used to make your plastic.

All this for a product that is totally unnatural and takes forever to biodegrade, choking, poisoning, and otherwise harming wildlife who unknowingly eat or get caught in it, and poisons animals, including humans, with things like pseudo estrogens.  And forget landfills, paper biodegrades exponentially faster in nature.

You said that you've "heard recycling paper is more toxic than producing plastic new."  Well, don't believe everything you hear, especially from someone who's clearly either uninformed or part of the petroleum industry.  You couldn't be more wrong, recycling paper is nowhere near as toxic as creating plastic (see first paragraph).

Finally, you claim that "[j]udging from the facts about landfill make-up, plastic bags are much more landfill and eco friendly than paper ones."  Huh?  The study purported to show that paper makes up more of the garbage in landfills, not that plastic biodegrades faster.  (I have very strong doubts about even this claim.  For one thing, if the researher found paper from the 19th century, he or she was looking at very old landfills that obviously wouldn't have much plastic.)

Conclusion: it's best by far to use reusable cloth bags.  Killing trees is bad, but so is drilling, transporting, and refining oil to make and unnatural product.  Plastic is evil and should be avoided wherever possible.On Umbra on personal actions that make a real difference posted 4 years, 3 months ago 11 Responses

Put Windmills ...

and other energy plants where the people are, in already altered environments.  Why should the fish and birds have to look at those things?  They don't belong out at sea.On Sigh posted 4 years, 3 months ago 3 Responses

Great!

More bird killing and radiation emitting cell phone towers; yahoo!  Maybe they won't be as obnoxious as Americans when they brey into their cell phones, but that's the only possible positive point here.On Africa goes cellular posted 4 years, 3 months ago 9 Responses

Chemicals Bad

"Some of the chemicals that keep our food fresh, our hair stylish, our floors shiny and our fabrics stain-free might be confusing our hormone systems and derailing fetal development."  Well, duhhh!!!  Except it's not "some," it's all.On WSJ, USA Today highlight dangers posted 4 years, 3 months ago 1 Response

Spirituality ...

teaches that we're all connected, that what one does to, say, a frog, one does to everyone and everything, including him- or herself.  Don't need science for that, and the world would be much better off without the destructive technologies that science has given us.On Does respect for the former help the latter? posted 4 years, 3 months ago 21 Responses

I Can't Believe ...

that people don't recognize an obvious, major difference between bottled and tap water.  The former does not contain chemicals added by the water districts: chlorine or chloramine, and flouride.  Even a normal water filter does not remove flouride, so the only way to avoid it is to buy bottled or buy a second filter just for the flouride.

On the other hand, buying bottled water is very environmentally destructive, due to the consumption of plastic bottles and the waste problem they create, even if "recycled."  (Plastic cannot truly be recycled; in other words, a plastic bottle cannot be made into another plastic bottle, but will be made into something else.)  So, one can sacrifice one's health, as we have chosen to do, by using a filter for the chloramine but subjecting ourselves to flouride, or sacrifice the environment but drink water without flouride, though it might have chemicals that leached from the plastic.  Sheesh!  This is another problem caused by overpopulation that has no solution except lowering the population.On Bottled v. tap posted 4 years, 4 months ago 9 Responses

Relatively Good Democrats

The only Democrats worth supporting are those in the progressive caucus and most in the black caucus.  The rest are just corporate whores or crapitalist pigs like the Republicans.On Many feigned regret, but ultimately the pork pulled them in posted 4 years, 4 months ago 5 Responses

Most Democrats ...

like most people, put money and business concerns ahead of environmental ones.  Only a party that places concerns about life ahead of materialist concerns can be counted on to do the right thing.  The European Green Parties seem to be on the right track, but I'm unaware of any party in the U.S. that fits this description.  Even if we had one, what chance would it stand of winning any elections outside of places like Berkeley?On Many feigned regret, but ultimately the pork pulled them in posted 4 years, 4 months ago 5 Responses

Hold Everything ...

Before you all continue to go gaga over wireless, did anyone consider the environmental harm of this stuff?  It floods our air with radiation, and all major studies not funded by the industries have shown at least a strong potential for serious physical problems from this.  Even if western science doesn't understand the harm it does, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.  This stuff is completely unnatural, so it can only have bad consequences.On Coaxing residents to urban cores posted 4 years, 4 months ago 13 Responses

I Agree, But ...

I think this explanation is far too, and needlessly, complicated.  Instead, it's a matter of priorities.  Those who prioritize certain things that usually group themselves together, such as individualism, materialism (which manifests itself as things like free market promotion or property rights), and social Darwinism, are likely to object to environmental regulations, because they think that they should be able to do whatever they want.

Personally, I see this attitude as nothing more than a lack of maturity.  Kids think the same thing, and it's the job of parents to teach them that we're all just drops of water in the ocean; in other words, we have to share the planet, so we have to make sacrifices to ensure that our actions don't needlessly harm others, including other species.

My point is that if you keep the concept simple, it will be easier to understand, and thus easier for people to act on this knowledge.  As I've said before, acting like the only, or even main, reason that people do things like vote for Bush is that they're uninformed is grossly patronizing and condescending.  Those people have different attitudes toward life, which is what we must change.  They're not generally stupid or uninformed.On Cultural biases precede empirical facts; greens should fashion strategy accordingly. posted 4 years, 4 months ago 5 Responses

What About Mining Uranium?

This all sounds great (well, not really, but it doesn't sound anywhere near as bad as fission reactors), but what about the fuel?  If uranium mining is still involved, it still fails compared to wind and solar, and of course to using much less energy and greatly lowering our population.On Should nuclear fusion be considered a green energy source? posted 4 years, 4 months ago 10 Responses

It's Overpopulation, But I Won't Call You Stupid

"India is losing the battle to save its biodiversity, thanks in part to the human male's residual instincts to demarcate territory"?  Maybe in miniscule part, but India's biggest problem BY FAR, environmental and otherwise, is human overpopulation.  And, unlike China, India has shamefully done nothing to deal with that problem.  There are so many people in India that the tigers, elephants, and other large animals who need lots of space have nowhere to live.

People who prioritize humans or their kids will probably never face the reality that humans are choking the rest of the planet with the former's extreme overpopulation.  However, from ecological and biological points of view, there is absolutely no doubt.On An outright thumbs down posted 4 years, 4 months ago 4 Responses

Elitism

It appears that many people, Perifrog being a prime example, have no idea of why many, if not most, people buy organic or locally grown (personally, I haven't bought non-organic produce since the mid '70s): it's to eliminate or reduce ecological and environmental harms.  The rest of this is just meaningless garbage, and those who disparage people who buy organic and local are just espousing the very anti-environmental position of promoting Earth destroying pesticides and oil.On Organic snobbery posted 4 years, 4 months ago 15 Responses

What Banks Do

The idea of any bank, let alone the world bank, doing good is nothing short of laughable.  Banks exist solely for the purpose of making money, and they do that by helping the rich and mega rich horde their ill gotten gains.  (The fact that average people also put their money in banks just helps them do this.)  This in turn is done by destroying the Earth for profit.  Get your money out of the bank and into a credit union!On The World Bank gets called out posted 4 years, 4 months ago 1 Response

French Nuke Testing

Dave was correct.  France was conducting above ground nuclear tests in French Polynesia.  When I was in Tahiti ten years later (1995), Greenpeace was leading (mostly native) demonstrations against France for the same reason.  Sometime after I left Tahite, France did the tests about 600 miles away, leading to riots that led to, among other things, the burning of the airport.On Conservative talkshow host Tucker Carlson thinks bombing Greenpeace's Rainbow Warrio was just peachy posted 4 years, 4 months ago 2 Responses

Tax Oil Heavily, Too

I support whatever gets people to drive less and whatever will remove the idiotic amount of roads we have blighting the Earth.  Bio-d's ideas are excellent, but there's no reason we can't also have a much higher gasoline tax.On The pseudo tax posted 4 years, 4 months ago 2 Responses

What's Wrong With Large Energy Projects

Amazing, you wrote that "...the very large wind installations on the great plains can replace the devestation of the land..."

Putting anything industrial on natural land is devastation, by definition.  That's why I'm strongly and unequivocally opposed to these projects.  The only real solutions to these problems is to greatly lower the human population and for everyone left to greatly lower consumption.  That, along with the solar panels on roofs and occasional windmills out back should take care of the problem.

That said, I'd probably always rather have a windfarm destroying the land than a mine or oil well.  However, it's all destruction of natural areas.On Umbra on wind farms ... again posted 4 years, 4 months ago 56 Responses

Right On, Lisa

Calling buyers of shade grown coffee ecochumps was a particularly bad example.  Falling for the legally meaningless term "natural" is one thing, but buying an alternative product that doesn't destroy the rainforest, as consumption of the traditional product does, is NOT being a chump of any kind.  In fact, buying the rainforest-destroying coffee makes you a chump!On When it comes to green products, who's zoomin' who? posted 4 years, 4 months ago 14 Responses

Just Another Of Many Reasons ...

to oppose international, or even long distance, trade.  Buy and sell locally!On 'Domestic' seafood sent abroad for processing. posted 4 years, 4 months ago 2 Responses

Why Not Just Adopt ...

if you recognize the over population problem, but want to have children who will be enviros?  As accel2 said, it's not a genetic thing.  Kids almost always end up doing what their parents do (as opposed to what their parent say).  There's no need to add to the overpopulation problem by having your own kids.

Furthermore, even if it were true that without breeding enviros couldn't produce any more enviros, how could we lower the population if we didn't stop breeding?  As accel2 said, if you have kids, you either don't know about the overpopulation probem, don't care about it, or think that your personal desires are more important than the rest of the planet, as most Americans, and maybe most people, do.

Jdeely, you're lost.  Ecologically there are over 500 times too many people on Earth.  We're centuries away from declining populations being a problem, absent an unforeseen catastrophe that wipes out billions of people.On How many kids do I have to have to get your attention? posted 4 years, 4 months ago 11 Responses

Sticks Needed Along With Carrots

Bio-d is correct that force is needed to protect ecosystems, in the U.S. and everywhere else, including Africa.  If Mr. Nyong truly believes that it is "unfair and impractical" to use force in order to prevent wrongs, he should begin by dismantling the police and military, whose main function is to protect the rich and their property.  People only say things like this when they don't believe in what the force is being used for.  I fully agree that it would be far preferable to have a just society where wealth is shared equally, such as in hunter-gatherer societies.  However, this is far from the current reality, and force is certainly needed to protect those who cannot protect themselves, beginning with non-humans.On Farming in an age of global labor and developing world poverty. posted 4 years, 4 months ago 13 Responses

Which Systems Are Outmoded?

Bio-d (good nickname Amazing, thanx) claims that living as a subsistance farming and hunte
ing-gathering are"outmoded living model[s]."  This couldn't be farther from the truth.  The fact is that ONLY the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is sustainable.  ALL "civilizations," defined as agricultural societies decay and go away after some period of time.  The reason is simple: living as hunter-gatherers is the only natural way to live on this planet.

Unfortunately, I have no ideas for HOW to return to this way of life.  However, our fundamental goals should be to greatly lower our population and give up agriculture due to the fact that it's environmentally destructive and unsustainable.On Farming in an age of global labor and developing world poverty. posted 4 years, 4 months ago 13 Responses

What Is "Evil"?

Just because those who work in corporations aren't conspiring to destroy the Earth, or people's lives or culutures, doesn't mean the former aren't evil.  I suggest Ward Churchill's excellent essay on 911, calling those who worked in the WTC to little Eichmans.  If you do things that harm the planet or other people just to make a lot of money, I call that evil, even if the harms you do are a byproduct and not your intention.On Pick on the bad guys, not the kinda bad guys who claim to be good. posted 4 years, 4 months ago 9 Responses

Replies

Amazing:  My argument has nothing to do with ethical relativism.  Driving is violence because it destroys life in many ways that I won't list here.  "Property" is a human construct, and some of us don't consider its destruction to be violence.  That said, I agree that if not used sparingly and very strategically, property destruction can cause more harm than good to the movement.  However, there have been times when it has done the opposite, such as when spiking trees has saved forests.  As nature is far more important than the movement, property destruction that saves the Earth from human destruction is a good thing.  The problem is that property destruction does not usually accomplish this goal.

Also, Ghandi and King both used non-violence as a tactic, not because they opposed violence under any circumstances.  They just thought that they were sure to lose if they used violence.

City Hippy:  In addition to what I said to Amazing I fully agree that we should always consider the long term consequences of our acts.  In most instances, property destruction will cause more harm than good, so it shouldn't be used.  However, you're both being absolutists about refusing to use or support a tactic that can sometimes save a piece of our Mother, which is more important than all the property in the world.  There are instances where property destruction might be very good for the Earth.

This is off the subject, but I totally disagree with the idea that a parent should never slap a child.  If you want to see natural parental behavior, watch the non-humans and you'll see parents whacking and biting their young when needed.  What's not natural, and is also cruel and counterproductive, is beating a child or hitting him or her after the act being punished has occurred.  But a slap on the butt during the act or immediately afterward is sometimes necessary.  To a certain extent, might DOES make right, regardless of the fact that people like us don't like it.  (Otherwise, the Native Americans would have defeated the Europeans and we wouldn't be here.)  A child needs to learn that message or  he or she will be in for a rude awakening.  A child also needs to be taught, above all else, that the world does not revolve around him or her.  Parents who are unequivocally opposed to slapping their children seem to think otherwise, to the detriment of the rest of us and the planet.

To both of you:  Regardless of whether it helps or hurts, reading about SUVs or other Earth-destroying property go up in flames feels good viscerally.  Therein lies part of the appeal of property damage.On Conflating environmentalists and terrorists is all the rage posted 4 years, 4 months ago 21 Responses

Tactics

To City Hippy, I don't necessarily condone property damage as a tactic, merely because of your concerns that it is likely to be counterproductive.  However, there might be circumstances where it is effective in at least stalling an environmentally destructive activity long enough to stop it by, for example, a court or legislative victory.  I do agree that violence almost always begets violence and that this is certainly no long term solution to anything, but we're in a desperate ecological and environmental state that calls for desperate actions where they'll be effective.On Conflating environmentalists and terrorists is all the rage posted 4 years, 4 months ago 21 Responses

I Agree With Irt ...

that property damage is not violence.  I attended a forum at New College of California in San Francisco a few years ago about whether violence could ever be a legitimate method of obtaining justice.  The hundred or so people there came to the consensus that property damage, such as destruction of a vehicle, is not violence, but that driving was violence.

My point is that one's definition of violence depends on what one's priorities are.  If your priorities are property rights and materialism, then you think that property destruction is violence.  If your priorities are life, human or otherwise, you believe as the forum did.On Conflating environmentalists and terrorists is all the rage posted 4 years, 4 months ago 21 Responses

It's Everywhere

Idiots who insist on using cell phones have caused the invasion of cell phone towers into places like National Parks.  If you don't want this stuff wrecking nature, don't use it!  It's all completely uneccesary; I'm a lawyer and I don't have a cell phone.On The ever-encroaching wireless web posted 4 years, 4 months ago 1 Response

Who's An Extremist?

"[E]xtremists call[] for mandatory birth reductions"?  On a planet with more than 500 times the number of ruling beings that could possibly exist and still sustain any kind of biodiversity, it is anyone who supports having more than one child who's an extremist.  The vast majority of humans are so disconnected from nature that they just can't see how extreme their lifestyles, and their positions supporting them, are.  There are so many people on Earth that the plants and animals have nowhere to live.  Now that's extreme!

Furthermore, it's not "idiots who arson SUVs and labs 'just' because they are doing genetic research on trees," it's the idiots who own SUVs or do genetic research.  If you participate in ecologically or environmentally destructive behaviors like these, you deserve whatever you get.On Conflating environmentalists and terrorists is all the rage posted 4 years, 4 months ago 21 Responses

Terrorism = Name Calling

Depending on one's point of view the same act could be terrorism, heroic, or somewhere in between.  While I'm against killing except to eat and in immediate self defense, using the words "terrorist" or "terrorism" renders the speaker's, or writer's, position illegitimate.  If you have a complaint about a person or group or their actions, articulate it.  Calling someone a terrorist is no more meaningful than calling him or her an asshole.On Conflating environmentalists and terrorists is all the rage posted 4 years, 4 months ago 21 Responses

Bigger Problem Than Most People Realize

The cattle industry -- and due to their much smaller numbers, to a lesser extent the sheep grazing industry -- has caused more environmental damage to the western U.S. than any other industry.  This is far from being a minor issue, but most people don't even know about it!On BLM's Erick Campbell on creative editing posted 4 years, 4 months ago 1 Response

Industrial Society Will End ...

whether humans end it voluntarily or Mom does it for us, because it's not even close to being ecologically sustainable.  I have no opinion on whether humans can evolove quickly enough to give this stuff up before it's too late, but I hate anything that destroys life (and everything in nature is alive, even the rocks!) and will fight against things that do, starting with industrial society.

Keep in mind that predictions are just that.  There are virtually an infinite number of variables in life, so that no one can accurately predict the future.  So, there is a chance that people will realize that they don't need or want to buzz around the Earth at unnaturally high speeds, leaving massive ecological destruction in their wake, and there's a chance that day could be tomorrow!  If you don't work for something, there's no chance of achieving it.On Going coast to coast by rail. posted 4 years, 4 months ago 11 Responses

Personal Responsibility IS Important

The right thinks it's all about personal responsibility, as if the decisions of those in power have no effect on everyone else.  The left thinks that the actions of average people don't matter, as if those in power would be able to make their decisions without at least some agreement or acquiescence by average people, and as if the actions of hundreds of millions of people don't matter.

Well, you're both wrong.  Of course those with more power have more responsibility for what goes on, but average people are also responsible.  As the Nuremberg trials held, we are all responsible for our actions.  More importantly, the actions of the large majority are what constitutes human behavior and affects the planet.

My point is that Dave is dead wrong that personal responsibility and mindful living are distractions.  As a former Bush I staff person said, we can oppose war all we want, with demonstrations, letters to Congress, etc., but so long as we consume a lot of gas, we've voted for oil wars.

On the other hand, Dave is dead right that "[t]he goal is creating a human society where a life of environmental virtue is de facto, something individuals live without thinking twice about it, because their material and social circumstances channel them in that direction."

There's no reason not to strive for both.  The right's propagandistic lies are obvious to the left, but the left's abandonment of personal responsibility should be reconsidered and discarded as the bleeding heart folly that it is.On There are worse things than hypocrisy posted 4 years, 4 months ago 8 Responses

What's The Ecologically Harmless Alternative?

I once challenged Jerry Brown and his "technology expert" at the time to provide just one example of a technology that doesn't either kill plants or animals, or pollute the air, land, or water.  Neither of them could name one!

How can there be air travel, which is totally unnatural for humans, without hideously harmful things like extremely loud planes and earth-destroying runways and airports, even if some magically harmless fuel were found?  I understand your point that we have to be careful what we say in public in order to not scare people away or turn them off, but this is supposed to be an enviro blog and I assume I'm interacting with fellow environmentalists, not the general public.  Tactics and strategies aside, our goal should be a much lower human population that lives in harmony with the rest of the planet, whatever that requires.

If humans evolved enough mentally and spiritually, they wouldn't desire any of these environmentally harmful technologies.  They'd be very happy to live relatively naturally and enjoy this fantastic planet.  For a parable of what I mean, watch an episode from the first season of the original Star Trek series called "Errand of Mercy."On Going coast to coast by rail. posted 4 years, 4 months ago 11 Responses

Never Underestimate The Power Of A Shnook

I agree that we must work on all levels, not just concentrating on the federal.  However, Emily seems to think that the ecological crises brought about by humans over the past several hundred year -- and which get worse by the day -- are not real.  In fact they are very real, and the current bunch of psychopaths now running the U.S., and thus the world, is quickly making things much worse.On O'Conner announces she'll be leaving posted 4 years, 5 months ago 7 Responses

Industrial Society Bad

Driving and flying cause many other ecological problems beyone consuming oil and polluting the air, though those problems are certainly significant.  Industrial society itself (along with human overopulation) is destroying ecosystems and causing massive amounts of extinctions, and will continue to do so if not eliminated.

As I've said before on this site, humans must evolve mentally and spiritually to greatly reduce their desire for material things and to be willing to live in a simpler, more natural way.  There are no magical solutions -- including biofuels, or wind or solar power -- to the problems caused by, for example, paving over the Earth for roads and runways.  Those things would certainly be far less ecologically harmful, but they're still not natural.  Industrial society is very far from being in harmony with life on this planet and it has to go!On Going coast to coast by rail. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 11 Responses

Flying Is For The Birds!

Between their unbearable noise and massive destruction of land for runways, even if airplanes eliminated their air pollution, which is also collectively massive, I'd be happy to see them go.On Going coast to coast by rail. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 11 Responses

Natural?

Very little that humans now do is natural, and it's getting less natural by the day.  By unnaturally circumventing natural population control without controlling their reproduction, humans have grossly overpopulated the planet.  Add to that all of the unnatural human destruction, like that mentioned in this post, and you have a totally unnatrual situation that's killing the planet.

The specific culprits here are those who purchase the floral greens as well as those who pick them.  On the supply end, preventing this type of ecological destruction would be a far better use of the military than killing innocent people in other countries for oil.On Brush pickers chew up our forests to make your flower bouquets. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 2 Responses

Don't Be Fooled

Car makers are not "good guys," they're evil capitalists who are a major part of the current planetary destruction.  Toyota and Honda are clearly not as bad as the others, but they're also clearly not good.On Toyota to American public: we make bad cars too! posted 4 years, 5 months ago 4 Responses

Cattle In The U.S. West Are Ecological Disasters

The best environmental reason to not eat beef is that the cattle industry has done, and is doing, more harm to the western U.S. than any other industry.*  These very large, non-native animals have turned our western grasslands into deserts, spread so much non-native grass across the west that there's very little native grass left, and have destroyed most western riparian areas.  Ranchers have fenced the west to contain their cattle and ranchers kill any wild animals perceived to be a threat, or even in competition with, their cows, including other ungulates.  Ranchers are by far the biggest reason that wolf reintroduction is having such a hard time.

After avoiding driving and breeding, the best thing an American can do to help the environment is avoid eating beef or lamb.  Cessation of cattle and sheep grazing in the western U.S. is essential to restoring and protecting our land.

*Sheep are individually even more ecologically destructive than cattle, but there aren't anywhere near as many sheep as there are cows.  Everything said about cattle, ranchers, and the industry also applies to sheep, except for size.On Reason number 5,233,294,049 ... posted 4 years, 5 months ago 3 Responses

Humans Shouldn't Be Everywhere

Odograph, you're correct that destroying rivers and riparian ecosystems to grow food in the desert would cause much ecological harm.  Here's the problem: the southwestern U.S. is a fragile desert ecosystem that can only support a small number of people without causing massive ecological harm.  Therefore, Phoenix and Las Vegas are probably the two most overpopulated places in the U.S.  By grossly overpopulating those places, people have created a problem for which there's no solution, other than drastically lowering the population to that which the ecosystems can naturally support.

However, this is a completely different problem than the one caused by industrial transportation, which consumes oil and pollutes the air, water, and land.  Virtually everything should be bought and sold locally in order to reduce the harm from consuming, refining, and burning oil, AND people shouldn't live where they don't belong.  If you want to live in the desert, live like Apaches!On The question of whether to buy locally grown food is not as clear as it might appear. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 7 Responses

Keep It Simple

There's no reason to make such complicated analyses.  Buying local is clearly better than not due to less oil consumed, pollution emitted, and roads needed.  Buying organic is also clearly better than not due to lack of poisoning the Earth.  Convoluted, overly complicated analyses only lead to ludicrous results.On The question of whether to buy locally grown food is not as clear as it might appear. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 7 Responses

All Good Environmentalists

should make it their priority to prevent the human race from getting off the planet.  It's bad enough we screwed this place up.On Can the moon provide infinite clean, cheap energy? posted 4 years, 5 months ago 4 Responses

About Bhurley's Expectations

"[H]umans develop expectations quickly and don't give them up easily."  So?  That doesn't mean that they have any right to have those expectations realized.  I've constantly said that the only lasting, effective  solution to ecological problems is for humans to evolove past the expectations of materialism, greed, and selfishness.  Forget what non-humans do or think, humans clearly have the power to either evolve or to destroy life as we know it.  The animals just live out their lives in harmony with nature, unless humans put them into a non-native environment or otherwise give them some unnatural advantage.  Because we CAN give up needless material things that are harming the Earth and other species, we should do so.On Just disapproving of society's direction isn't enough. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 16 Responses

Dave I Hope You're Right

Because, consider the alternative if you're not.On The Piltz Effect posted 4 years, 5 months ago 6 Responses

Great Argument Against The Human Race

If the human population is not drastically lowered and people don't cease their gluttonous consumption, we will destroy ourselves and a good part of life as we know it.  This seems to be the track we're on.  As a deep ecologist, I'm fighting so that there's something left to grow back after the next ice age comes and recedes, but don't have hope for much beyond that.On Just disapproving of society's direction isn't enough. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 16 Responses

Agricultural Subsidies Can Be Good

The issue of subsidies is a mixed bag if we're not careful to distinguish different types of subsidies.  Subsidies that prevent imports are good for the Earth, because they reduce the extremely harmful effects of transportation.  If you want to be environmentally friendly, buy local!

However, subsidies that cause imports are evil and should be removed.  I'm all for giving U.S. farmers subsidies to prevent imports, but strongly oppose subsidies that allow our farmers to export food.  Africans should buy food grown in Africa, not here.On Reform at the World Bank. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 4 Responses

Tipping Point Of What?

Even Kyoto is nowhere near sufficient to address global warming.  The scientific consensus is that humans must reduce their output of greenhouse gasses by 70-80% in order to end human-caused global warming, and any cessation of human air pollution will not take effect for around 40 years.

My point is that unless humans agree to greatly simplify their lifestyles, things like Kyoto will have virtually no effect.  I realize that most writers and readers here think that there is some magical solution that could solve global warming -- usually revolving around what someone else would do -- but the fact is that if you drive or use a lot of electricity, you're the cause of global warming and the only solution is for you to greatly reduce your driving and consumption of electricity.  Of course, companies must also greatly reduce these activities.  So, are we willing to simplify our lifestyles and give up uber materialism, or will we watch as the Earth is drastically changed for the worse by unnatural human activities?On The Piltz Effect posted 4 years, 5 months ago 6 Responses

Which Side Are You On?

This debate comes down to whether you worship the god of technology, or nature.  Many, if not most, enviros, including me, side with the latter, at least for the most part.On GMOs have their upsides and downsides; a little balance is in order. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 10 Responses

Wrong Question = Wrong Answer

The real issue here is whether one supports further destroying the Earth -- this time with Franken science -- in order to feed a grossly overpopulated species.

The human mind is like an out-of-control car with no one steering it: all intellect and no wisdom.  GM science is just another acceleration of the car.On News from the GM front. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 10 Responses

Extremist Position?

What's extreme is killing anything we don't eat, including trees.  The logical conclusion of your comment, at which you fail to arrive, is that we need to stop consuming products whose consumption causes environmental harm.On Environmentalism should look in the mirror to find the source of its troubles. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 23 Responses

Who's In Control?

Let's accept the conservative claim that those who run governments mainly lust after material wealth and power.  So, let's limit that power as much as possible.  Who will fill that vacuum (i.e., who will take power)?  It will be the extremely wealthy, which in our society use corporations to do their work.  The ultimate conclusion of the conservative dream of eliminating government power is fascism, which boils down to big business running the government (arguably the situation in the U.S. for quite some time and getting worse by the day).

There's plenty to complain about in government, but we at least have some chance to control or change it with elections, as flawed as those are.  Corporations are pure tyrannies that operate without any public oversight or control, where it's one dollar one vote as opposed to one person one vote.  Again, I don't feel that the U.S. government is at all representative of the U.S. population due to private campaign financing and lack of proportional representation, but hopefully we can change that through elections.  The vast majortity of us who aren't rich have no chance to change how corporations operate, absent the extremely rare successful campaigns that force them to change their most egregious practices.

As to Jeremy's statement that "few people would want to embrace [] pre-agricultural lifestyles," my response is that it doesn't matter one bit what most people want.  Any lifestyle that is not sustainable will end, and there's no evidence that agricultural is sustainable, whereas the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is.

As to his comment that a "low-resource-use life" is "fictional," that's patently false.  Just about everyone on the planet consumes far less than Americans, and people a very short time ago didn't consume that much.  Traditional indigenous societies consume very little and live in harmony with their surroundings.  There is nothing "fictional" about a life of little material consumption, it's far better for the planet, and it's spiritually evoloved from being a materialist.  It's also not, as Jeremy claims, moving backwards, but instead would be an evolution in human consciousness to fully realize that we can live without the vast majority of crap that we now consume.On Environmentalism and liberalism shouldn't be joined at the hip. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 61 Responses

Heart Of The Matter

The problem is that the Nature Conservancy was not actually protecting the land that it was supposed to be protecting.  I agree that there is a strong push to allow ecologically destructive activities that will profit some people, but that doesn't seem to be the issue here.  We need to hold TNC's feet to the fire and make them actually protect the land!On Pat Burns writes on the uncertain fate of conservation easements and the millions of acres they prot posted 4 years, 5 months ago 4 Responses

Irreconcilable Conflicts

"If I am pro-life ... does that mean I don't care about protecting forest ecosystems or saving blue whales?"  I redacted the strictly social issues, but being anti-choice ("pro-life" is a dishonest term) is detrimental to forests, whales, and every other form of life, because restricting abortion rights adds to humans overpopulation, which harms all life on Earth.

"[M]any environmentalists' contempt for economics is exceeded only by their ignorance thereof."  You misunderstand: we don't have contempt for economics, but for putting economic concerns ahead of environmental or ecological ones.  Regarding ignorance of economics, one need not know anything about economics to hold the view that all life should take precedence over economic concerns.On Environmentalism and liberalism shouldn't be joined at the hip. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 61 Responses

Responses To Andy & Jeremy

Andy:  "Natural" means of nature, as opposed to human-caused.  You are correct that the term gets thrown around a lot, mostly by those who want to claim that something is natural that in fact is not.  To specifically address yours and Jeremy's examples, organic corn is certainly less unnatural than corn grown with pesticides, chemical fertilizers, or GMO/GE corn, but agriculture itself is unnatural, because it consists of humans removing natural vegetation and supplanting it with their own.  Also, virtually all food that we eat has been modified by humans, so there is little if any natural food left, with the exception of wild food.

Jeremy:  "[T]here is nothing that should intrinsically align liberalism ... with  the environmental movement."  Maybe you just don't understand us, though I'm not conservative enough to be a liberal.  The common link is that we feel that the good of the whole is far more important than the good of certain individuals.  Both environmentalism and leftism advocate individual sacrifices in order to protect the environment or the entire society, respectively.

"I'm a ... pro-market environmentalist."  This is an oxymoron, because being an environmentalist means giving priorty to the environment, which cannot be done while advocating for unnecessary consumption, which is one of the two roots of environmental problems (the other is overpopulation).On Environmentalism should look in the mirror to find the source of its troubles. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 23 Responses

Another Anti-Environmental Post

"[A] reflexively luddite wing of the green movement" that you don't like?  Defining those of us who oppose these extremely unnatural forms of technology as luddites is just more right wing crap, supporting those who stand to profit (financially or otherwise) from these technologies at the expense of the rest of the planet.

You don't like the precautionary principle, which merely means that a corporation can't attack the planet with technology before proving it's safe, instead of the rest of us having to prove it's unsafe, usually after great harm has been done?  Excuse me, but no less than the European Union has adopted this principle, as have many U.S. cities, including mine (San Francisco).

Considering that, in addition to your other anti-environmental positions, you think that technology should be allowed to take precedence over our lives and the planet, how do you consider yourself an environmentalist?  Merely wanting clean air and water don't make it, as everyone wants that.On Nanotech protestors get naked. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 5 Responses

The Secret Problem

Overpopulation is the "elephant in the living room" that no one wants to discuss, but it's also the biggest and most important problem on Earth.  By its gross overpopulation, the human race covers virtually the entire planet like some disease.  Additionally, because the vast majority of humans don't live naturally (i.e., as pre-industrial hunter-gatherers), humans have an extremely negative ecological effect wherever they are.

However, overpopulation is a uniquely strange issue.  On one hand it's totally natural to breed, as it's what keeps the species surviving, and the instinct to breed is very strong to say the least.  On the other hand, the problem is that humans figured out how to circumvent natural population controls, but failed to control their birthrates when they did so.  This is an utter failure of wisdom, both from those who think that humans should "go forth and multiply" and from those who just never bothered to consider the consequences of unnaturally increasing the human population.

So, we end up with an issue that no one even wants to discuss for different reasons.  Many people feel that family size is "personal," even though it affects the entire planet.  Others don't think that we should discuss actions that are driven by natural instincts.  Still others fail to recognize that everything is finite so that we can't keep increasing our population without horrible consequences, especically ecological ones.  Finally, there are those, from right wing religious fanatics to leftists, who think that humans are the only (or by far, the most) important life form on Earth and that it's good that we cover the planet.  (These reasons are not usually articulated as such, but they are the main reasons that people don't want to discuss human overpopulation, or to even recognize it as a problem.)

If we don't even discuss a problem we can't begin to come up with solutions.  People need to get over their hangups with the overpopulation issue.  It should be front page news constantly (it's infinitely more important than so-called terrorism, for example) so that we can begin discussing how we're going to lower the human population in order to acheive a level that's in balance with nature.On But the hispanic portion is growing like gangbusters. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 10 Responses

Reply To Anthropocentric Comment

Crude oil must be refined in order to be used as fuel for vehicles.  Gasoline is much more refined than diesel, which means that it causes much more pollution to refine gasoline.

The problem is that you're only condsidering human health.  Why should non-humans suffer from human-caused air pollution that only benefits humans?  If people insist on driving, it's best for the rest of the planet for most of the resulting pollution to be emitted in areas where humans live.  It's not like there's no life outside of human areas, it's just not human life. On New diesel design inspired by tropical fish. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 8 Responses

Reduction Of Oil Consumption

It's true that the emissions from diesel engines pollute more than those of gasoline engines, but that's only because the pollution caused by refining gasoline occurs at the refineries.  Refining diesel causes much less pollution, because it's not as refined as gasoline.  Out-of-sight, out-of-mind?

More importantly, consumption of oil should be our main priority.  The impacts of that consumption cause serious wildlife and wilderness destruction from drilling, transportation, spilling, and refining of oil.  I realize that many enviros have become obsessed with global warming, but it's only one of many, many ecological and environmental problems, and not even the most destructive one in terms of its potential effects on non-humans.On New diesel design inspired by tropical fish. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 8 Responses

Money Is Still God

Unfortunately, even these scientists put business and money ahead of the planet and its ecosystems and species.  This is backwards.  Instead of worrying about which steps are "cost-effective" and advocating for the "development rights" of developing nations (which are NOT, as claimed by the scientists, "legitimate," as no one has a right to destroy the planet, which is what development is), they should have emphasized the scientific consensus that we must reduce our greenhouse emissions by 70-80% if we're to reverse human-caused global warming.  This should be done at all cost, not subservient to the gods of money, greed, selfishness, and materialismOn Is it appropriate for them to act as political advocates? posted 4 years, 5 months ago 5 Responses

A Sane Plan

Here's the way I think civilization should look:  Suburbs do not exist, period.  People either live in the cities or rural areas.

The cities are surrounded by agricultural land (currently the hideously destructive suburbs), which produces all the food for the cities.  Private motor vehicles are completely prohibited, and all cities have good, 24/7 public transit, including sufficient subway systems so that it doesn't take forever to get across town.

The rural areas have no industrial amenities.  Those who really want to live in the country actually do so, without destroying the ecosystems in which they live with industrial crap.  I envision possibly solar or wind energy produced by the homes that use it, and maybe satellite TV, but that's about it.  Horses would provide high speed transportation.  There should also be very large areas from which people are completely excluded.

Mainly, the selfish suburbs have got to go, along with their selfish lifestyles.  Above all, we must greatly lower our population, or no solution will work.  The idea of an ever growing economy or living areas is totally out of touch with the reality that space is finite and humans are already taking up far too much of it.On Why can't we change our oil-sucking land-use preferences? posted 4 years, 5 months ago 5 Responses

Bikeshare In Germany

A friend from Bremen told me that her town tried a bikeshare about 15 years ago.  The problem was not that no one used the program, in fact it was quite popular.  The program's downfall was that, apparently, all of the bikes were stolen.On Do they ever really work? posted 4 years, 5 months ago 2 Responses

International Trade Is Bad For All Species

Biodiversivist is dead wrong about international trade.  Its harms include consumption and burning of oil, water pollution from ships, so much noise from those montrous freighters that the whales can no longer hear each other over long distances, and spread of non-native species.  Most of these things are causes of some of the greatest ecological problems we face.  We should be aiming for everything to be bought and sold locally, which it certainly can be.On Are corporations hog-tying conservation groups in CAFTA fight? posted 4 years, 6 months ago 4 Responses

Balancing Act

We want public access to our politicians, but don't want corporate types to be able to lobby them.  The solution would seem to be to disallow lobbying by monied interests.  Rich people already have far too much power anyway and this would be a good way to remove some of it, not that they wouldn't find some way around a ban on lobbying by monied interests.On Foreign corporations spend big to influence U.S. environmental law posted 4 years, 6 months ago 2 Responses

Response to jvermillion

John Muir was not only not a kook, he was a hero who is directly responsible for saving large natural areas from people like you who want to destroy (what you call "develop," a grossly misleading term) them.

Re Muir's dislike of humans, my guess is that he was referring to civilized humans, in which case his dislike is shared by everything on the planet with the exception of pets.On An environmental-justice advocate insists he's not dead yet posted 4 years, 6 months ago 7 Responses

Keep It Simple

Want to do your part to address global warming?  Organize your life so you don't have to drive (or, if you don't feel you can do that, drive very little) and keep electrical use to a minimum.  Don't have more than two kids.  Pretty simple, but so far most people aren't willing to sacrifice their unnaturally comfortable lifestyles.On Umbra on reducing emissions, one person at a time posted 4 years, 6 months ago 3 Responses

Sophisticated Propaganda

One of the battles among special interests is "environment vs. economy"?

Excuse me, but the environment is NOT a special interest.  Its health affects every living thing on the planet, so it's the exact opposite of a special interest.  The economy, on the other hand, is the ultimate special interest: rich people want laws that favor the rich, poor people want laws that favor the poor, and middle class people want laws that favor the middle class.

This sophistic lie of calling environmental, civil rights, and human rights concerns "special interests" has been used by the right for long enough that it unfortunately has become successful.  As the Nazi propagandist said, all you have to do is repeat  a lie often enough and people will believe it.On An optimistic op-ed on Washington state climate moves. posted 4 years, 6 months ago 6 Responses

Gross Misunderstanding Of Conservation

"[T]he U.S. has reserved open space for the exclusive use of whites"?

WRONG, WRONG, AND WRONG!!!  Open space is reserved primarily for non-humans.On Why race and class matter to the environmental movement posted 4 years, 6 months ago 3 Responses

Educate People To Make Conscious Decisions

I partially agree with Clotaire Rapaille: MOST people currently make SOME shopping decisions unconsciously.  This is an area we should focus on, getting people to become more conscious of what they do every moment.  If people actually thought about some of their purchases, they probably would not make them.  Being more conscious of what they do would make people happier on a personal level, and purchasing less would be much better for the planet.On Transportation choices are made as much with the heart as with the head. posted 4 years, 6 months ago 4 Responses

Cut Demand, Don't Destroy The Earth

I always appreciate amazingdrx's anti-nuke comments, but I also oppose destroying the plains or any other natural area with windmills or powerlines.  We need to reduce our consumption of electricity so that it can all be generated locally.  The basic fallacies here are caused by trying to determine how to reduce ecological and environmental destruction in order to provide for selfish luxuries like electricity, instead of trying to determine how to live in harmony with the Earth by using as little electricity as possible and requiring that the sources be from the least harmful technologies.

For a start, no single-family home should be allowed to use more electricity than it generates with its windmill and/or solar collectors.  Business should be forced to drastically reduce their use of electricity (all office buildings must have functioning windows and cannot use air conditioning, all lights off at night except in rooms being cleaned, no lighted advertising, etc.).  If these ideas are not sufficient to reduce consumption so that we don't need extremely harmful sources of power like coal or nukes, we must reduce further until that goal is acheived.

As to John McC's comment that we "face reality" and cause further extreme harm to the Earth by mining and processing uranium, and creating plutonium and nuclear waste that lasts virtually forever, just so that today's children can continue our gluttonous and highly destructive lifestyles:  The reality is that our current lifestyles are nowhere near being sustainable, let alone in harmony with nature, which is what we should really be aiming for.  I suggest that those who oppose drastic reductions in (especially American) consumption face that reality!On An interview with doomsaying author James Howard Kunstler posted 4 years, 6 months ago 25 Responses

Responses

rmbnm:

The origin of the Nazis was a back-to-the-land movement, well before Hitler.  That's the reason I used Nazis as an example (though Christians are just as repugnant to traditional indigenous people and I agree with them).  A back-to-the-land movement is certainly compatible with environmentalism.On Is there tension between them? posted 4 years, 6 months ago 41 Responses

Industrial Society Is Not Sustainable

And the sooner it becomes extinct, the better!On An interview with doomsaying author James Howard Kunstler posted 4 years, 6 months ago 25 Responses

On The Bench Instead Of In An Asylum?

Brown is, in a deeper sense, the worst of this group.  She's said or written things like, "private property ... is now entirely extinct in San Francisco" and "senior citizens blithely cannibalize their grandchildren" to get "free stuff."  On top of believing that property rights, which are most important to rich people, should be placed above all other rights, this woman is clearly psychotically delusional, but will soon be a justice on the most important appellate court in the country, second only in power to the Supreme Court.

In return for allowing people who belong in prison or mental institutions to sit on the federal bench, the Democrats might get to filibuster some nominees if the Republicans feel like allowing it.

Once again the Democrats (or at least enough to do the job) have sold liberals and progressives out.  We must stop supporting or voting for these jerks, and begin supporting Greens and other progressives, even if we have to lose a few elections (i.e., lose some battles to win the war).On Bush to get roughly half his environmental-nightmare judges through the Senate. posted 4 years, 6 months ago 2 Responses

Oops!

My last post came out wrong.  The sentence in the second paragraph that begins, "If that's your schtick" was from someone else's post.  That part of the paragraph should read as follows:

My post is not about blaming people for what others do, but for being part of a group that has done and still does very harmful things (see the Nazi example).  Believe whatever you want, but please don't support conventional Christianity in any form, because it's one of those groups.On Is there tension between them? posted 4 years, 6 months ago 41 Responses

Response To CowsEatGrass

2. Conflating natural beings with machines for the purpose of claiming that the former causes as much or more environmental damage than the latter is sophistry.  It is a tactic often used by extreme anti-environmentalists such as the "wise use" people.  Calling my post "holier-than-thou talk" is name calling.  As far as I'm concerned, political and environmental discussions are not about you or me, they're about the planet, ecosystems, species, air, land, water, and entire societies and cultures, so there's no "holier-than-thou" aspect to anything I say because I'm not saying anything about myself;

3. Au contraire.  In order to have a meaningful discussion, words must have agreed-upon definitions.  If a person doesn't fit the definition of being an environmentalist, he or she should not call him- or herself one.  Doing so is also harmful to the movement and the Earth, as when people in the Bush administration call themselves environmentalists in order to promulgate anti-environmental rules or pass anti-environmental legislation.  Let's just say that I consider advocating for bicycles in wilderness to be an anti-environmental position, which might be taken by someone who is otherwise an environmentalist.

4. Clothing is not a product of industrial society, and we were discussing methods of transportation, not what one carries.  Carrying something is not necessarily harmful to the wildnerness in which it's carried.

5. Yes.  The result of allowing bicycles in wilderness areas is to ruin the wilderness experience, both for other people and more importantly for the plants and animals that live there.

I realize that you were being sarcastic in a previous post, but we actually should close many wilderness areas to people.  Humans are all over the planet, and non-humans should have some places where they are free from us.On Bush wants to ride his bicycle bicycle bicycle posted 4 years, 6 months ago 11 Responses

Don't Forget Renewable Energy

Another reason the study reached incorrect results is that it failed to consider the use of solar or wind energy to wash & dry the diapers, or to consider just hanging the diapers out to dry.  This is the kind of result you get when small minded, non-environmentalists prepare a study!On A new study on diapers finds no difference between cloth and paper posted 4 years, 6 months ago 8 Responses

Meat Is Meat

I always fail to understand the squeamishness of certain meateaters (generally white people) toward certain animals.  If one eats meat, what difference does it make which small animal one eats?On Kebab meat a new rodent species posted 4 years, 6 months ago 2 Responses

Religious Theories v. Actions

What the bible or any other religious text teaches is not the issue and is mostly irrelevant, though for the sake of honesty, I strongly disagree with the vast majority of those texts.  My problem is not with Christ's teachings, some of which are excellent ("do unto others" being the premier one), my problem is with Christians and the Christian religion.

Danzac, regardless of what you personally believe, Christians as a whole, along with Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, and others, believe that when one dies, his or her spirit goes somewhere or does something.  By definition, this means that they believe that the body and spirit are separate.  Aside from the foolishness of trying to know the unknowable -- what happens to a person after he or she dies -- one cannot believe that there is an afterlife without believing in the separation of body and spirit.  As I pointed out in an earlier post, this belief gives license to do really horrible things, including destroying the Earth and indigenous cultures, which is exactly what Christians have done.  What the followers of a religion do is what's important and relevant, not what the religion supposedly teaches.

I also must point out how sensless your religious ideas are.  You claim that "[t]he notion of heaven and life after death is portrayed in the bible as being physical (ie. the physical body is with God)."  This is ridiculous and provably false.  One's body decays and returns to the Earth after death ("ashes to ashes") and I challenge you to cite any evidence to the contrary.

Finally, I do not "blame God" for what Christians did and still do to traditional indigenous cultures and people, but I do blame Christians.  You are correct that there were many white people who were selfish and wanted (and are selfish and still want) to conquer traditional native people, but there were also the Christians who wanted to force their religion down the natives' throats.

Rbnmn, a Mormon environmentalist is almost an oxymoron, you must feel very lonely.  When I worked with Earth First!, we couldn't even wear our Earth First! t-shirts in Utah for fear of being physically attacked.  A large percentage (most?) Mormons are ranchers, supporting the industry that has more environmental damage to the western U.S. than any other.  They also strongly support off-roading, another horribly destructive activity.  Most importantly, they practiced polygamy, which helped overpopulate the Earth by producing unnaturally large families.  Mormons still believe in producing large families even though the Earth is so overpopulated.

Finally, it was Mormons who kidnapped my Native American friends and tried to make mormons out of them, and I have learned that this was a common practice.  What I said to danzac applies to all religions: I couldn't care less what a religion supposedly teaches, the only thing that matters is what its follwers actually do.On Is there tension between them? posted 4 years, 6 months ago 41 Responses

1+1=2

Any religion that teaches that the body and spirit (or soul) are separate is anti-environmental, because that belief gives license to destroy the Earth for the following reason:  Physical things are all finite and temporary, whereas spiritual things have the potential for being everlasting and infinite.  If the body and spirit are separate, there is no reason to care about the physical world, because the only thing that matters in the end is what happens to the spirit once the body dies.

If Christians or other religious people want to fight for the Earth, great and I'm glad to have them aboard.  However, the teaching that the body and spirit are separate does much harm, regardless of individual exceptions.

Furthermore, Christians are the enemies of traditional indigenous people.  I have Native American friends who were kidnapped by Mormons and forced to attend Mormon schools.  (They all ran away back to their reservations as soon as they were old enought to do so.)  How many Native Americans were killed by the Christian missionaries in California alone?  Converting those with Earth-centered beliefs to Christianity allows them to begin destroying the Earth.  For those who defend this particular religion, what is your evidence that it is not an anti-environmental, anti-indigenous religion?On Is there tension between them? posted 4 years, 6 months ago 41 Responses

Money Is Not An Environmental Cost

What does financial cost have to do with anything?  The only environmental issues here are how much oil is consumed and burned by using an old car v. buying a new one that consumes and burns much less.On Buying a Prius has benefits, but don't forget the costs. posted 4 years, 6 months ago 3 Responses

Concur

I agree with cephoe, and add that union busting, while despicable, has nothing to do with greenwashing.On Whole Foods tries to trick greens into praising a big corporation posted 4 years, 6 months ago 8 Responses

Let's Tell It Like It Is

I know Dave hates it when I do this, but this situation is a perfect example of why we need to call into question the environmental credentials of anyone who supports nukes in any form.  Unless they can create nuclear power without mining or processing uranium, and without making horribly toxic compounds like plutonium, no real environmentalist would ever support it.

The first step is to confront so-called environmentalists who support nuclear power with all of its harms, beginning with the mining and processing of uranium all the way to the horrible toxic waste created that cannot be removed or detoxified.  If they don't renounce nukes at that point, let's call a spade a spade and tell the world that those who support nukes are not enviros, whatever their agenda might be.On Learn to identify certain common fallacies. posted 4 years, 6 months ago 6 Responses

Habitat Conservation Plan Is Not

According to the Seattle P.I., "habitat conservation plans [] grant exemptions from rules that protect struggling species."  These plans are nothing but circumventions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  The Habitat Conservation Plan was an amendment to the ESA, and there's nothing good about it.  We fought its passage then its implimentation in the early '80s, but we lost those battles and this is the result.On Massive new Washington habitat conservation plan is bad news. posted 4 years, 6 months ago 1 Response

Breath Of Fresh Air

Wow, now John Francis is a black environmentalist I can relate to, unlike Norris McDonald, who's more like Clarence Thomas and who Grist seems to be pushing for some unfathomable reason.On John Francis, a 'planetwalker' who lived car-free and silent for 17 years, chats with Grist posted 4 years, 6 months ago 7 Responses

And, They Build Nuclear Weapons

GE is a truly evil company that builds nuclear weapons, among other things.  I really hope they'll make a major push for clean energy, but they've got a very long way to atone for their past and present sins.  This is equivalent to the Nazis saying they're going to build solar panels.On GE commits itself to clean energy tech. posted 4 years, 6 months ago 5 Responses

Good Parody

I don't understand why you don't like this.  She's commenting on the fact that when corporations settle with people who sue them, the corporations always insist on the settlements explicity stating that the corporations bear no fault for the harm they've caused.On Huffington Post posted 4 years, 6 months ago 1 Response

Japanese Advantage Is In Culture

American cars will likely never be as good as Japanese ones, because our culture give priority to individualism, while Japanese culture gives far more to the entire society.  (This is meant neither to unduly glorify Japanese culture, which certainly has many negative features, nor to say that virtually all other cultures don't give more priority to the entire society than this one, which they do.)

This means that U.S. auto makers care almost exclusively about short term profits.  While the margin of profit is always an important factor in business, Japanese car makers clearly care far more than American ones about building dependable cars and ones that get much better gas mileage.  This has been true for decades, and I don't see anything that indicates that it's about to change.On GM turns to greenwashing. posted 4 years, 6 months ago 5 Responses

The Real Crisis & Real Pain

"If we're going to get through this crisis period without an awful lot of pain, we're going to have to have the equivalent of a Manhattan-like Project."

Excuse me, but the crisis here is that humans are extracting, transporting, refining, and burning oil, not that it might run out or be hard to extract some day.  Significant pain has been felt by the Earth, air, water, plants, and non-human animals since oil extraction began.  Human crybabies complaining about the possibility of oil running out make me either laugh or angry, depending on what mood I'm in.

Jeff HoffmanOn At least one member of Congress realizes the size of the problem. posted 4 years, 6 months ago 6 Responses

Reduce Energy Consumption & No Nukes!

Bill:

"I'm talking about americans, who use more energy than anyone else on the planet."  In other words, Americans are gluttonous pigs who need to greatly reduce their consumption.  Environmentalists should not support destroying the Earth with mining in order to support this disgusting lifestyle.

"[Y]ou are proposing reducing our energy usage by 70%.  How do you propose to do this?  How would you alter your own life to meet this goal?"  First, cover all roofs with solar panels.  Eliminate wasteful use of electricity, such as streetlights (guess what, it's supposed to be dark at night, and stars are much more pleasant than streetlights!) and office buildings that leave lights on.  (These are just examples, there are many more ways that electricity usage should be cut.)  Make replacement of incandescent lights with more energy efficient ones mandatory.  Finally, set maximum levels of electricity use for all buildings.

As for myself, I use very little electricity.  This computer doubles as a work computer, I watch almost no television, and I only use a small light in the room I occupy.  I have a friend who lived totally without electricity for many years here in the Bay Area.  (She finally ran an extension cord up to her home in order to use her computer to do environmental work at home; she's a workaholic.)  Remember, this is a luxury, not a necessity, and the sources of it are very environmentally destructive.

There is no safe level of exposure to ionising radiation (i.e., radioactivity).  According to Dr. Helen Caldicott, who's a physician and expert in these matters, "[i]t only takes one radioactive atom, one cell and one gene to initiate a cancer."  Every scientist and physician I've ever heard on the subject says this.  The only possible beneficial effect of low levels of radioactivity is that of evolution, which scientists theorize MIGHT be caused in part by low levels of radioactivity.  However, this natural, background radioactivity also injures and kills people if the level is too high.  People who don't spend enough time in the sun can suffer from lack of vitamin D, but this is not caused by a lack of radioactivity.  I know nothing of the studies that show that low levels of radioactivity stimulate our cell's natural anti-mutagenic system, but this sounds very suspiciously like a nuclear industry funded study, which would therefore not be credible.

Da silva:

"Just because Ralph Nader says it's so doesn't make it fact."  That's true, but just because you say it's true doesn't make it true either, and Ralph Nader has a lot more credibility with me than someone who claims that plutonium is not that toxic.  Beside, I didn't get this from Nader, even though he has been by far the best candidate in the last two presidential elections.  This is a well known fact that has been repeated by scientists.  It only takes one milligram of plutonium to kill an adult human.

You also deceitfully conflate naturally occurring toxins with plutonium, almost all of which is produced by humans.  Naturally occurring bacteria and chemicals are part of the planet.  Plutonium need not be produced, and is only part of the planet because people put it here.

Finally, while it's true that alpha emitters cannot penetrate skin, they can be inhaled and will cause harm once that happens.

Jeff HoffmanOn An interview with longtime anti-nuclear activist Helen Caldicott posted 4 years, 7 months ago 18 Responses

Nuclear Industry Flak?

"The dangers of plutonium are highly overrated. It's nasty, but not that nasty."  Thomas Palm is either badly uninformed or a liar.  Plutonium is THE MOST TOXIC substance known.  I don't know how one can overrate that.On Some not-entirely-coherent thoughts on nuclear power. posted 4 years, 7 months ago 34 Responses