Comments SMLowry has made

So it's not just my computer! I'm on a Mac and use Firefox, too, and everytime I get some wierd box talking about script and do i want to continue downloading and then I get that rainbow ball going round and round and I cross my fingers hoping firefox hasn't frozen and I'll have to force quit and start all over again. Now I have two accounts, one I can't access because a password e-mail was never received even though I have contacted the "bug department" several times, and I can't update to my newer e-mail address because of this. And even typing this is difficult because it seems the keys I hit aren't coordinated with what's coming up on the page, something I don't notice on any other site. Another site I visit fairly often also did a redesign and it's full of bugs, even worse than this one if you can believe that. It's so bad I can't even open it from a bookmark but have to google search it and open from there. Obviously that's not going to happen.

As far as news and opinions goes, to me that's not an issue. I can pretty much tell what's news and what's opinions and personally I like them mixed - opinions and news in the same piece, which was what I liked about gristmill. I'd check on the news occasionally to see what Grist though newsworthy, but it was the opinions that I liked most because I like to think, I like to be challenged and I like to be opened to new perspectives. One of the things that always irked me about publishers of magazines and newsletters (back in the day when such things existed, before there was an internet and writers actually got paid for what they wrote) is their insistance on objectivity and balance which to me meant I had to give both sides equal credence even when one was actually (and factually not just in my opinion) wrong. Of course after enough time goes by the truth will come out. Remember when climate change wasn't accepted as fact, just some left/radical plot against the status quo? Or when clearcutting old growth was the thing to do and anyone who disagreed was a tree hugger, which was always supposed to be a derogatory thing to call someone? Anyway, I digress. Hopefully one day I'll check this site and find my old friend back. And if there are any typos or whatever in this, don't blame me, blame whatever wierd connection is happening between my keyboard and this comment box.

So it's not just my computer! I'm on a Mac and use Firefox, too, and everytime I get some wierd box talking about script and do i want to continue downloading and then I get that rainbow ball going round and round and I cross my fingers hoping firefox hasn't frozen and I'll have to force quit and start all over again. Now I have two accounts, one I can't access because a password e-mail was never received even though I have contacted the "bug department" several times, and I can't update to my newer e-mail address because of this. And even typing this is difficult because it seems the keys I hit aren't coordinated with what's coming up on the page, something I don't notice on any other site. Another site I visit fairly often also did a redesign and it's full of bugs, even worse than this one if you can believe that. It's so bad I can't even open it from a bookmark but have to google search it and open from there. Obviously that's not going to happen.

As far as news and opinions goes, to me that's not an issue. I can pretty much tell what's news and what's opinions and personally I like them mixed - opinions and news in the same piece, which was what I liked about gristmill. I'd check on the news occasionally to see what Grist though newsworthy, but it was the opinions that I liked most because I like to think, I like to be challenged and I like to be opened to new perspectives. One of the things that always irked me about publishers of magazines and newsletters (back in the day when such things existed, before there was an internet and writers actually got paid for what they wrote) is their insistance on objectivity and balance which to me meant I had to give both sides equal credence even when one was actually (and factually not just in my opinion) wrong. Of course after enough time goes by the truth will come out. Remember when climate change wasn't accepted as fact, just some left/radical plot against the status quo? Or when clearcutting old growth was the thing to do and anyone who disagreed was a tree hugger, which was always supposed to be a derogatory thing to call someone? Anyway, I digress. Hopefully one day I'll check this site and find my old friend back. And if there are any typos or whatever in this, don't blame me, blame whatever wierd connection is happening between my keyboard and this comment box.

I keep on coming back, hoping things have improved or I've perhaps gotten used to them, but no such luck. I miss gristmill and being able to scroll though various articles and comments. And unless I'm missing it no such thing exists on this site. It's just like so many other bloggs now, which I check out on occasion, but never regularly and usually don't bother to comment because I won't be back to see if anyone responded or if I added something others felt important to the discussion. Even though I never met the writers or posters (to my knowledge anyway - who knows - in my travels in my "past life" as an activist/conference speaker/presenter maybe I did) gristmill felt like a community of sorts. Now the pieces have been broken up and repositioned in ways that, for me, destroyed that feeling. I'm curious if the "powers that be" at Grist will take the criticisms of so many of us that are basically saying similar things to heart and try and revamp some aspects of the site to give us what we want or if the thing was to bring in new, perhaps younger, folks.

foliage

I don't know about all the above, but with regard to the "drab foliage" in the White Mountains:  While I can appreciate the sentiment - impacts of climate change - I would not use "drab" to describe our foliage. It does vary from year to year. A couple of years ago it was tear-jerking gorgeous. Last year I was surprised it wasn't more vibrant, we certainly had enough rain, but maybe not enough sun. But "drab", never drab. Another thing to consider - during the ice storm a few years ago most of the birches and many other trees were stapped off, especially in the notches and higher elevations. I can still see a difference from before the storm, they're still recovering. But yes, climate change is being felt here, for sure. And it pains me, and troubles me very deeply that nothing will be done in time to prevent the loss of today's beautiful foliage,and maple syrup, and so much more. The bones of the mountains will remain. That much we know. On Q&A with a board candidate I wish I could vote for posted 9 months ago 10 Responses

WTFFFF? is right!

I don't understand it either. It's totally frustrating to me. I just finished writing my column for the local paper on just this topic. And I expect to get all kinds of flack for it. A majority elected Obama and now all I hear is how we have to appease the republicans to look bipartisan. WTF? is right. Did Bush try to appease the democrats? Did he even care what they thought? Absolutely not. The economy is in a shambles, the environment is even worse, the stimulus package is far from perfect, there are things in there I don't agree with. But pleeze . . .On Obama talks tough on the need for investment posted 9 months, 4 weeks ago 6 Responses

Other ways

I want Obama to oppose nuclear energy and I want him to oppose "clean" coal. I'm not pleased that he's made these concessions. We have to figure out other ways.On McCain accuses Obama of not being pro-nuclear power posted 1 year, 2 months ago 8 Responses

Ouch!

It's like the stage was set for this to happen. The oil industry in control, basically everywhere, world trade agreements being what they are, the devaluing of the US dollar, inability to look at, and make decisions based on actual reality- which has been going on for years now, blinders with regard to the fact that we live on a finite Earth, that somehow growth will, and should, prevail. Where we're at, as I see it, is a totally logical place. Many, myself included, have known something like this was down the road. But that's the thing - it was down the road. I figured that we had about five years before the current scenario (in some shape and form) played out. But it's like, snap, and here we are. But that's also true with regard to climate change. Snap, and here we are. So it makes a kind of wierd sense, and though what's happening is making my own life difficult, and a bit more precarious financially, the bottom line is the way we live is unsustainable and has to change. Somehow. We're being given a huge kick in the pants. Ouch!On No easy explanation for continued price increases in the oil markets posted 1 year, 4 months ago 48 Responses

I agree

about the McMansions and SUV's, Hummers, etc. It's the rest of us lower income folk living in northern climates I'm worried about. It's true the handwriting has been on the wall for, well decades now. And I was doing what I could to point it out to those who would listen (not many obviously), but I'm afraid I can't get all chuckly and snide now when I'm in pretty much the same boat - minus the McMansion and the gas guzzler (mine's a Honda which isn't too bad as far as cars go). Big difference is I don't have money in the bank to pay for my heating oil this winter and though we "only" use a bit over 300 gallons, it's still too much as far as my pocketbook is concerned. We also "only" used 2 1/2 cords of wood, and that has gone way up in price as well. And people are amazed when I tell them our gallons and cords. Most around here use more than twice that. It's not unusual for a farmhouse to use 8 to 10 cords of wood plus some oil. I can't imagine. Something has to be done. We can't all move south. On Energy prices posted 1 year, 5 months ago 6 Responses

different world

As a mother of three young men, the youngest 26, none of whom, thank the Goddess, are in the military, however they have friends who are. Decent young men who joined for various reasons. And when the son of a friend/customer who shops in the natural foods grocery where I work went to Iraq, I began to change my own opinon, not of war or the military perse, or the whole worldview that gives rise to the military as it currently exists, but of the young individuals who make such a life changing, perhaps deadly, choice of what to do with their lives. There's an excellent interview in the current issue of The Sun (that I'm too lazy to go find right now to give specifics, but it must be online) about the role of the Warrior in other cultures and how we could benefit in this country by recongizing and finding ways to honor and understand those who feel pulled towards Warrior culture. It made sense. Anyway, our military is what it is because that's what our world view has created. It must change, I agree. And it can, but the whole thing needs to be rethought, revisioned, recreated because, as I often say to my sister, "It's a different world now." On Militarization and progressive change are not compatible posted 1 year, 6 months ago 27 Responses

Oh . .

Oh my goodness. Sorry about the mistakes. "interactions" and "balconies". My inner-editor kicked in too late.On Growing your own food is fine, but governmental action is needed, and soon posted 1 year, 7 months ago 11 Responses

Yeah for gardens!

That tomato sandwich (post way back) sounds awesome! Finally spring is here and I believe the final few inches of snow in the garden will melt this week. Yeah! It's been a long, hard winter here in Maine. But right behind me as I type, seedlings are growing - tomatoes, many kinds, too many really, celery, basil, oregano (which doesn't come back in my garden, more basil, stevia (which I treat as an annual), and various flowers. Soon I'll plant the brassicas and then I'll start some nasturtiums because one can never have them soon enough. And the birds have returned along with the sun and warmth. Such a blessing, at last. Yes, growing a garden, wherever it may be - in pots, in the yard, on the roof, is a wonderful thing. No one mentioned beans. Beans are great for kids, or anyone, to grow. And you can freeze, pickle (dilly beans) or can them (which I prefer over freezing) whatever you can't eat. And garlic - don't forget garlic (which we plant in the fall here in Maine).On A bright trend for dark times: kitchen gardening posted 1 year, 7 months ago 26 Responses

On our own

That's absolutely right, anotherID. I can't believe how high the cost of, for example, bread is now. At the health food grocery where I work part time, most of our breads (we sell only local, high quality bread) have gone up between 75 cents and $1.00 in the last three months, most of the jump recently. This does not include regular price hikes ever since gas went over $3.00/gal called a "fuel surcharge" on our invoices. A 5 pound bag of King Arthur bread flour that I use for my sourdough went up from 3.79 to 5.19 in just one week. (This at Hannaford's). At my store again, local eggs are now 3.49 from 2.99, so that we can pay the producers more because their costs have risen. Everything has risen much more than the so-called inflation rate. Heating oil is $1.30/gal more now than last year at this time. The prices on necessities have gone up on average, I'd say, at least 30% in the past six months. Bailing out corporate banks and investment firms may be seen as a good thing by those in power, but it does nothing that I can see for the rest of us. But then who cares if poor folks like me and my sister can afford to eat or pay our bills? Certainly not investment bankers. We're on our own. Sorry if I sound bitter, but this winter, which still drags on and on here in Maine despite the calendar, has taken its toll on finances and patience. The stress of these realities is at times hard to bear. Then there's driving to work three days a week on roads that are unspeakably bad (enough to cause major damage to my old 1996 Honda if I'm not exceedingly careful). And where is the money going to come from to repair them? Higher taxes no doubt. It pretty much sucks.On Meyerson on the need for a new New Deal posted 1 year, 8 months ago 13 Responses

More to it

I agree with Canis, it's not the Catholics, or they're just a tiny part of it. What about the health industry? How often have we heard how we should try to eat at least fatty fish, like salmon, once a week, and how any fish is good for you? Even with the whole mercury thing. And then there are all the fish oils we buy. I work in a small health food grocery part time and we sell lots of fish oils, in capsules and bottles of them, esp. salmon and cod liver oil. And those have to come from fish that are caught even if we don't see them resting on beds of ice in the store. It's a lot more than Catholics eating fish on Friday. On Would Jesus eat fish during Lent? posted 1 year, 8 months ago 34 Responses

A missed opportunity

I'm sure there are other meatpacking plants where similar atrocities take place. What disappointed me with regard to the evening news presentation of the story, which ran two nights in a row, was it was limited to the potential for contaminated meat - not that that's a minor thing, especially when it went to the school lunch program. There was nothing about the humane issues and the videos were very upsetting. I mean really, who wants to think that their hamburger came fron an animal in such agony? It would have been a great opportunity to offer people other options than eating meat from animals so abused. You can not eat it or you can buy meat from locally-raised animals, where you can actually visit the barns if you want. People have to be encouraged to connect the reality of what's going on in the world with the choices they make. I know we can only expect so much of mainstream media, but still. On Despite biggest meat recall ever, 37 million pounds of suspect meat made it to schools. posted 1 year, 9 months ago 13 Responses

desperate

People are so desperate to continue the current lifestyle, they'll do anything. It's going to happen on this side of the pond, too.On British government embraces a nuclear-powered future posted 1 year, 10 months ago 13 Responses

Young people

I liked what Kennedy had to say about young people. That Obama speaks to them, excites them enough that they participate. That makes sense and it's a good point. On Sen. Ted Kennedy endorses Obama posted 1 year, 10 months ago 2 Responses

Change the status quo

I wonder, Canis, if one of the reasons people in this country want to stay in denial about where our food comes from and how it's raised and produced is because most folks are so far removed from it. If it wasn't for the grocery stores people would starve. So to seriously question it means we may have to take some responsibility, not only for our choices but also for, perhaps, some of its production, whether through CSAs or community gardens or backyard gardens, whatever. Also, there's the fear of rising prices in a time when everything is getting more expensive. Most people these days are losing ground financially. What is needed is some imagination and creativity with regard to how our food is produced and where, and the nature of our relationships with the growers/producers of our food (and in turn their relationships with the land, the crops, the animals, etc.) We have to be willing to seriously take on changing what has been the status quo until now. On this and on many other issues.On Fast Food Nation author regales organic-farmer audience posted 1 year, 10 months ago 6 Responses

moss

Actually, moss grows on the ground, too. There are so many different kinds of mosses it's amazing! I have a nice patch in my back yard under the white pine trees. And it's soft, much nicer than prickly pine needles. Then there's always the snow (upon which a blanket and/or heavy parka can be laid). Yes, I know, it's cold but I was many, many years younger then . . .On Wildlife writer discusses being plagiarized by a romance novelist posted 1 year, 10 months ago 8 Responses

Not easy

Steve, that would be the obvious solution, but easier said than done. As you noted, people, myself included, have been expounding on such an idea and even implementing projects to bring it about for the past few decades, but the current dominant system is still growing. While the many sprouts of a new, ecologically sustainable economy have been and continue to be created, they just seem so tiny and fragile compared to the greedy monster that is market-based capitalism. One of the reasons for this, I feel, is that the average person buys into the dominant view that creating such an economy, much of which would be smaller scale than what we have (though economies of scale would have to come into play - not every region can or should manufacture everything)is impractical and unrealistic. In effect, such an economy is doomed by this thinking before it's given a chance. But I agree, this is what is needed and it's not impossible if folks would stop believing that it is. Most people these days seem to think that the economy we have was handed down to us by god from on-high and we simply cannot tamper with it. In fact, as you pointed out, the economy was created by (mostly)men and can be changed by all of us. Or, if they think it can be changed, it must be done by experts who know more than simple common folk. Which is also a myth.On Eban Goodstein invites you to join in the largest climate teach-in ever posted 1 year, 10 months ago 36 Responses

A real winter

The cedar posts in my garden fence are 4 feet above the ground. About 8" are showing now. I have one of those wooden swings out there, too, and only the very top of the seat is visible. This means we have over 3 feet of snow in our back yard. And it's only Jan. 3. The snowbanks in our driveway are small mountains, rivaling those I remember from my childhood in which I used to dig snow caves. It's barely above zero now, but, as in W.'s neck of the woods, it's supposed to get close to 40 this weekend. With maybe some freezing rain. This is a wonderful winter for skiing, however. It's hard to believe but there's a whole generation of skiiers (in New England) who have little experience of what it's like to ski in real, nature-made powder. The past few years have been so bad, snow-wise, that any mountain remaining open had to have extensive snowmaking. And the cross-country/snowshoeing conditions are to die for. (And the snowmachines, too, but I'd rather they disappeared completely, noisy, smelly, polluting, disgusting things that they are). The shoveling is difficult, the plow bill is astronomical (should I eat or pay the plow guy?), but still you have to love a real winter. It won't always be like this.On Remind me why I live here posted 1 year, 11 months ago 5 Responses

Thanks

How did I miss this earlier? What I love about this piece, aside from the absolute truth of it, is the acknowledgement of grief. I think it's one reason why we're having such a hard time getting some people to move beyond what we label as apathy. We live in a culture that is totally afraid of the so-called dark emotions of despair, grief, anger. Climate change touches all of those in me, especially grief. I would expect it would in others, once they really let it in. And I think we resist allowing it. Sometimes, though, it can't be avoided. Life's like that. But to willingly let it in?

The emotional and spiritual aspects of climate change have to be acknowledged. Looking at my small grandsons this Christmas, I often caught myself wondering what their future will be like and how it will be limited or cut short or even denied because of choices we've made and continue to make. And the Earth. It's not just how humans may suffer. So many innocent creatures, so much beauty. Damn . . . On It's too late to stop climate change, argues Ross Gelbspan -- so what do we do now? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 45 Responses

No twinkle

LEDs are okay. And I have them on the tree, but I also strung a regular string of tiny white lights because, unfortunately, LED's don't twinkle nor do they light up the shiny ornaments in the same way. It's like the light is right there in the bulb and that's it. It's a totally different kind of light.On Safe, energy-efficient holiday lights posted 1 year, 11 months ago 7 Responses

A little esoteric, but here goes

Paradigm shift? Absolutely. Strange though it seems, even to me, I've begun to take heart a bit because (and this is the strange part) of what feels like an intense culmination of lots of "bad stuff" happening. From weather disasters to financial and credit crises, rising energy and food costs to impacts of climate change on the here-and-now (the connections now being made which were ignored just a year ago) - there's so much going on that screams we've overshot basically everything, and it's impossible to ignore. Things will have to change, on the ground, where we live, regardless of any progress or not in Bali. The more "ordinary" people are impacted, the more they understand that there is little they can do on their own to keep "normal life" going as they have come to know it, the more quickly we'll see the chnages necessary. I believe there will be a paradigm shift because of the massive amounts of energy in the system and the chaotic nature of it. The more aware of what's going on we are, the more we work with it (rather than being swept along), the sooner the shift occurs. So much for my two cents on this cold, snowy day in Maine - where the power still flows despite snow and sleet all day, but I imagine what it will be like some day when that is not the case and we have to figure something else out.On It's time to throw down on the home court posted 1 year, 11 months ago 4 Responses

Yes

Whenever I think about what we're facing (which is often), I just can't imagine why we, we meaning global humanity at one end of the scale and each and every one of us at the other and everyone in between, aren't coming together to find ways of dealing with climate change, transforming lifestyles, processes, patterns, the whole bit. Because the trains are running and everything we learn seems to say they're running faster than we thought. Really. It seems to me it's all been said. The more we learn the worse it gets so what are we waiting for? Meanwhile tomorrow I'll get in my car and drive to work. It's insane!On Is the analogy between climate change and Hitler's atrocities appropriate? posted 2 years ago 49 Responses

Interesting

It will be interesting (as in the old Chinese curse?) to see what happens this winter with fuel oil prices higher than ever. Here in Maine they are, I believe, about 68 cents more per gallon than last year, which is huge. While I know there's plenty of discretionary driving going on, for my part, and many of the people I know, there's only so much driving I can cut out. I drive to work (three days), which is necessary, and one weekly trip to do shopping and related chores. That's it. We keep our thermostat way low (55 at night, 60 to 62 during the day) - luckily we have a well-insulated house - and during the coldest days of winter we supplement with wood. We're spending the same amount of money on food, but getting less for it so are eating more soups and things to make it stretch farther. Luckily we still have basic vegetables (potatoes, carrots, garlic, beets, squash, some greens and brassicas) from the garden. A part of me wants the economy to finally falter so that we're forced to do things differently. But then folks like my sister and I and those worse off will be the ones to suffer most, so what am I wishing on myself? On Why we're not conserving like it's 1980 posted 2 years ago 13 Responses

The whole picture

I think what we have to look at is the increasing number and severity of natural disasters and make tkhe connection to climate change that way. In this country alone, there's always something, and when you expand it globally, it's unbelievable. We've had a record number of "hundred year storms", "once in a lifetime" disasters, and dryer than, wetter than, hotter than "experts had expected" seasons. Sure they're all "normal" in that floods, fires, droughts  happen and in some places they happen as a matter of course, like the fires in California at this time of year due to the Santa Ana winds. I heard that this year it's hotter and dryer than usual, though, and the winds are stronger, hurricane force in some cases. We need to understand that this is the way it is now and plan accordingly, including changing how and where we build and develop. We have to put a lot of effort into saving property when perhaps the home shouldn't have been there in the first place.  Here in Maine increasingly powerful coastal storms are eating away at the coast line. Streets have disappeared and homes, some quite old - this wasn't a new development, were swept away. In some cases, people will rebuild, in others they can't. No one probably should. It's unfortunate and it's sad but it is the reality we live in right now.  On Greens should talk about climate disasters when people are listening posted 2 years, 1 month ago 16 Responses

oh

In re-reading that I didn't make it clear that the farm Jason worked on is in Vermont. I guess I should preview . . .On Methane from Vermont dairy farms to provide electricity for utility customers posted 2 years, 1 month ago 12 Responses

no more flushing?

This is not a good thing. People have a responsibility to be, well, responsible when planning development. It's wrong to essentially consign already stressed and rare species to extinction because humans need water to flush toilets. There has to be some way that we can create closed loop water systems that treat gray water so that it can be used for other purposes rather than putting it down the drain and into the sewers.On Georgia lawmakers propose suspending endangered-species protections during drought posted 2 years, 1 month ago 4 Responses

noise can make you crazy

It all depends on the kind of noise. While I'm a fan of alternatives, I have a new appreciation for noise issues after a farmer installed an industrial-style corn drying operation not far from my home - a very rural area where one can listen to the silence at night (which isn't really silent as there are many night creature sounds), but it's deep and wonderful. Anyway that corn drying operation, which was about a mile away as the crow flies, almost drove me insane. All I could hear, day and night, even in the house, was a constant, high-pitched hum. After a few weeks of it I was losing sleep, was irritable, especially at home, I felt like I could not breathe for that constant hum. It was torture. A number of residents complained (some weren't bothered, noise is one of those things, especically the kind of frequency the corn dryers emitted), and finally the farmer turned the thing off (on Christmas) and last year and this year I haven't heard it at all. Perhaps he decided an industrial style operation isn't applicable in rural Maine, I don't know.

I someone moves in and the noise is there, fine. But when you've lived someplace for ten years and suddenly something comes in that significantly impacts your quality of life, then there's an issue to be dealt with. In my case, no one was consulted. One day the noise was just there. And it was measurable because I had someone come out and measure it. But it was within the zoning ordinance limits, which obviously aren't as strict as Michigan. On the other hand there's a real need for non-fossil-fuel energy sources. Re: cars - absolutely they are noisy. But unless you live near a freeway, the sound isn't constant, 24-7, and it's the sounds with no relief that can be crazy-making. Literally. On For every problem there's a solution that's simple, attractive, and wrong posted 2 years, 1 month ago 3 Responses

more thoughts

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to this question. The thing is, there have been, and continue to be, numerous ideas for how to motivate people and facilitate change, on ths web site and others, not to mention books, magazines, etc. I believe it's the scale of the problems we face that make this so difficult, but hopefully not impossible. As the saying goes, solutions are not going to be found coming from the same mindset that created the problems to begin with. But most people demand that solutions deal with issues we face at the same scale and level as the problems themselves. For example, we know that certain processes create climate-destroying chemicals and that large corporations supported by government in many ways are the most responsible, and benefit financially from the pollution. Realistically, given our dire situation, these corporations should be stopped. But we can't. Because no solution we can come up with will provide the same number of jobs for workers or the profits for shareholders, CEO's, etc. Alternatives cannot supply, job for job, dollar for dollar, what we've become accustomed to. And this goes for every sector in every community in the westernized world. We are living in a time where drastic actions are called for, very few people would disagree with that statement. However we also live in a time where those drastic actions will not provide most of us with what we have been accustomed to in the way of comforts and financial security. So we're stuck. Unwilling, at every level, especially at the system level, to make the changes necessary. Furthermore, those of us with some ideas and suggestions must also be able to "predict" what will happen with certainty (as if there is such a thing these days) into the future. This isn't possible. All we can do is predict what might occur and make changes as we go. We create the path as we walk. There is no path waiting for us to find that will lead us out of this mess.

For many years now I've been putting ideas and examples of mostly community-based models out there that have the potential to make major differences for individuals and communities. These are small scale and do not have the power to supplant the global economic system, they do not have the ability to manufacture the stuff we have come to "need", they will not offer the magnitude of jobs or salary that many in the developed world have come to expect and depend on. But they are about recreating relationships, about developing community and interdependence. And who knows what they could lead to over time if given a chance? Our economic and political systems need a complete transformation. Our society and culture need to become less materialistic, more compassionate, more focused on quality of life and spirit, and ecology than on gain and profit and "stuff". And in order to make this happen many, if not most, of us will need help in one way or another. If we're in debt, whether for house or car or other things, well, these debts need to be addressed otherwise we won't have the freedom to choose another way of life. Very few people will quit their job for a more ecological lifestyle if they know they'll end up on the street for inability to pay the mortgage or rent.

Come down on me if you must for this extremely idealistic point of view, just as banks and other global institutions come down on the concept of debt forgiveness for indebted countries. You could say, well, people got themselves into their precarious financial situations, so let them suffer. You can be righteous about it but then we'll get nowhere in the most important struggle humanity has yet faced. Because it's not just "poor" people who would suffer should our current economy collapse (which it will eventually anyway and probably more dramatically if we continue dancing toward the precipice - of climate change and peak oil - that awaits). Given all the things that are happening "faster than we thought", it appears time is short (if we have any time at all) to mitigate the worst of climate change.

You're right. Reason is not working and violence isn't desireable. So therefore we must become unreasonable. For the kind of enery and spirit it will take, check out Diane Wilson's book, "An Unreasonable Woman: A True Story of Shrimpers, Politicos, Polluters and the Fight for Seadrift, Texas". I interviewed Diane for my newsletter back in 2004. Her book came out a year later. Here's what she told me: "Being rational, logical, and linear, working for more regulations isn't going to cut it. Corporations have made the playing field. If we play by their rules we're not going to get anywhere. I believe you have to be unreasonable and go out for what you believe is possible  - and expect miracles. I totally do. I expect miracles. I expect things to turn around. And people just look at me in amazement. People are so disillusioned. They don't believe you can win anything. They say, "You're just wasting your time, making a fool of yourself. You can't change City Hall. But if that's your attitude, you're not going to. So when I speak it's not so much to convince people on zero discharge but to inspire them to take their passion and create miracles with it, create change. . . . All things are possible. It's whatever you can dream up. You have to be willing to put yourself out there. . . "

The solutions aren't going to be handed to us by people who know what to do. We're going to have to come up with them, each of us in our communities figuring out what will work in our places. We can borrow and replicate models, we can dream up new models, we can re-create relationships and learn new skills. We can care for each other, forbid banks from taking our homes, prevent landlords from kicking us out of their overpriced apartments. A few people cannot stand alone against those in power (like banks and other credit insitutions) but those in power cannot long stand up to a majority demanding change. Our economy is a house of card and it can come tumbling down. And there will be some violence, whether we want it or not. We cannot expect those in power to graciously hand it over to us. We cannot expect them to willingly forgive debts. We cannot expect the system to be transformed from power-over to power-with without some chaos, anger, and struggle.

I believe it has come to this point: I believe we must do whatever it takes. Yet here I sit at my computer and tomorrow morning I'll get up and drive my car to work. Why? If I believe so strongly in what I've written here? Because thumbing my nose at my bank or creditors will only endanger me, my sister, and ultimately my children and grandchildren. So I'm doing what I can on a personal level, along with putting ideas and examples and info out there in various ways, while working towards creating a living community with family and friends, hopefully before I'm too old and decrepit to do the physical work required. Will I succeed? Who knows? I hope so, I pray so because it hurts to continue to be part of the problems endangering Gaia.On Loss of summer ice in the Arctic will threaten polar bear survival posted 2 years, 2 months ago 6 Responses

Depressing . . .

I don't want to be a pessimist, but I'm afraid I'm becoming one with the latest batch of news coming in (climate crisis coalition newsfeed). It's that 30 year lead time. Things are basically set for the next 30 years of so regardless of what we do now. Tranforming immediately means perhaps some stabilization could occur, preventing the worst of the worst to happen. That's my understanding. And everyday it seems there's news about something happening "faster than we thought possible". And it's never good. Of course the info (that climate change wouldn't be so slow and gradual) was out there, it just wasn't being taken credibly. But, as I've said in other posts, I do believe in miracles (born of hard work), and that  things can happen faster than we thought going the other way, too. And while we're at it, a little prayer wouldn't hurt.On Eh ... posted 2 years, 2 months ago 10 Responses

Re: Rural areas

Certainly food production is something that can, and should, be done in rural areas. And permaculture is a wonderfully elegant system, though it would need to be adapted for larger gardens. My understanding of permaculture is that it's more homestead scale or at the most, smallish community scale and the goal is to have more small farms/gardens, that produce a diversity of foods while also making use of and discovering/experimenting with the food/fuel possibilities of native plants. Unfortunately, much of the best agricultural land is rapidly being converted to development, malls, roads, and parking lots. I also believe it's possible for urban centers to grow a percentage of their own food in vacant lots, parks, and on rooftops, which would also add greatly to the quality of city life, or so I would think. Even in rural areas it makes sense to encourage thicker settlement in and around towns and villages while discouraging the sprawl that currently exists. Also there used to be many more small towns in rural areas than there are now thanks to consolidation. One can see abandonned or converted town halls, churches, schools, mills, etc. I would love to see a revitalization of small town life rather than the current trend towards bedroom communities that basically serve as housing for workers who drive many miles to the nearest population center to work. But that would mean looking at the work we do and why we do it and addressing the role debt plays and our often desperate need for federal dollars.On A guest essay from Jan Lundberg posted 2 years, 2 months ago 16 Responses

Sorry . . .

I have a real problem with this assumption Barnes makes: "[I]f there is only so much atmospheric space to go around, who does it belong to? He concluded that it belongs to the human race -- that each person should get an equal share of emissions." And it goes downhill from there. On A review of Peter Barnes' Capitalism 3.0: A Guide to Reclaiming the Commons posted 2 years, 2 months ago 17 Responses

humor

No, we haven't seen the kind of stress where I live in New England. Thankfully. The trees are stressed though, from acid rain especially, and extremes of precipitation. They're more vulnerable to insects. But right now things are absolutely gorgeous here. Lush, green . . . And I am grateful because I know there are places, like Birdboy's home, that are being devastated. I do expect that some day, and I don't want to live to see it, this place too will have its share of devastation. Here development plays a huge role in loss of forests, open space, and biodiversity. But then that's happening everywhere, unfortunately.

And then I read Canis' poem. And I couldn't stop myself from laughing. Wasn't it in another thread that someone said the most serious things provide the most humor? Or something like that? Anyway, it was well-done. ThanksOn And yet the media isn't reporting it posted 2 years, 6 months ago 13 Responses

No more "normal"

birdboy, you're absolutely right. And that's exactly what's happening. For example, what I've noticed happening more often here in Maine are "above normal" temperatures for several days or a couple of weeks, followed by several days of "below normal" temperatures. We seem to go from one extreme to another with fewer and fewer "normal" days in between. Precipitation can be similar. This past winter turned out to have below normal snowfall, but not extremely so. However, we didn't get any snow to speak of until Feb. 14 and most of the season's snow fell in late March and April. Not normal at all. But when you average it out the month turns out to be "normal", even when there was nothing "normal" about it. That's what I've long understood climate change to be about. Warming overall, but locally, erratic weather, more extremes, no more "normal". On And yet the media isn't reporting it posted 2 years, 6 months ago 13 Responses

A Spark

Colin, I love your post. It's a both/and situation. The key, for the more "radical" part I think, is to  find ways of being "in your face" that are creative, thought-provoking, attention-grabbing. There are all kinds of possibilities. Bread and Puppet Theater comes immediately to mind (I lived in Vermont for 20 years) - huge, puppets, people on stilts, huge banners, controversial subjects, etc. in parades and events. Bread and Puppet participated in all of the major "marches on Washington" that I can recall. The thing is not to hurt anyone, to be as respectful as possible. All Species projects also come to mind. In Vermont our All Species group participated in numerous public hearings in New England over the fate of the Northern Forest. Wolf, Owl, Cougar, and Bear got up and spoke (with a translator). It was all very respectful and it got attention, pictures in the paper, and more good information about the forest got out there as a result.

And doing the work in our communities is key, too. Hopefully it won't take as long as you think. As more people become awakened somehow and aware they will join in. This is my hope, my vision.

I pray it doesn't get ugly, like Canis wrote. None of us want to see the unthinkable, nor do we want to imagine that our children will even if we don't. That's what's so frustrating to me. Knowing what I do about how dire things are, believing in the possibility of transformation deeply, in the core of my being, and yet day after day goes by and we're (our country, our society, whatever - a huge "we") still in basically the same place. Something needs to spark something somehow, if that makes any sense. The work of reinventing our communities, our way of life, could happen quite quickly if a majority of people committed themselves to personally coming together to make it happen. I know that sound simplistic, but it really is. Because we're talking about changes in the Earth that are massive and that impact everyone everywhere. What people need to awaken to is the fact that we are not going to solve the problem by doing what we're doing harder. We aren't going to tax or trade or downscale emmission our way out of this. We need to do those things, or some version of them, yes. And so much more.

This is what I believe anyway, and believing it means that for me a more activist movement willing to take a few risks needs to be part of larger groundswell of community and neighorbood reinvention.

I think what I'm looking for, what I feel it will take, is a sense of  (okay I'm just going to type it, I've deleted the phrase four times now and can't come up with an alternative) magic and the possibility of enchantment. I'm not talking spell casting but rather an awareness of the power of consciousness and intention and focus.

The fate of the Earth and of all life, human and non-human is at stake with climate change. This is a moral issue. It's a spiritual issue, too. And definitely involved ethics and values. Like slavery, and all the other examples already given. And it goes even deeper because of the "all of life" thing. Right now I don't think people, or enough people, get how deeply serious our situation is. I'm not quite sure why not, but they don't. Or maybe they do but they don't see any alternatives. They see everyone going about their business and so figure that things will have to be all right, I don't know. Whatever it is, it has to change. We need to "spark" something. What will it take?On Reality checking the polls posted 2 years, 6 months ago 43 Responses

Where are the radicals when you need them?

A few more thoughts. Re: Move On, Step It Up, etc. I know Move On did have some success initially but seems to have fizzled. Step It Up got people out on a specific day but what happens now? At my local event, if you could call it that, a few people showed up, pretty much who I expected, no surprises, no huge numbers, no follow-up, no future plans (although I know each person who did show up is doing what they can in their private lives, more than the average American, I'm sure).

Another question: How can internet organizing really impact local communities? I ask this because, living in a rural area where towns are rather far apart with not much in between except roads and houses, the internet does not seem to be able to create face-to-face community which is what we need to actually make physical changes in the real world. So while I like the idea of a huge, mass movement facilitated by the web, I don't see it actually happening, not where I live anyway. And the point, I think, is to have community where we live, not to have to drive ten or twenty or fifty miles from where we live to have community (IMO that's not actually community, it's going to meetings, even if the meetings tend to feel like community).

Yes, I remember the 60s (late 60s anyway) and early 70s and I remember the anger and rage and frustration and digging-in-of-heels and name calling between young people (hippies) and the adults. I remember very clearly the world I hoped would be ushered in by our actions (which in my case included writings, poems, and of course, the music which held it all together and was something we all shared no matter where we lived), and I remember actually believing in what we were doing, no doubts.

Times have changed. The energy is very different. But we still need to get out into the streets. We need radicals willing to get arrested for nonviolent disobedience. We need people willing and able to strongly speak out, shout out, sing out regardless of how many more moderate activists say that doing so is counterproductive. Just as old growth forests need EF! energy, as controversial as that can be, Gaia today needs risk-takers. How many times in Grist have folks put down the more radical contingent of activists as perhaps doing more harm than good, standing for, instead, more moderate, measured paths to change as safe and even more effective? But is it really? It doesn't appear so.

And as one of the 3 percenters, I am not satisfied with the "optimistic and unrealistic US environmentalist story". Instead, I tend to see that story as bought and paid for by large funders with corporate connections, or as the result of people too comfortable in their positions wanting to maintain decent salaries while patting themselves on the back for doing good work. I guess my point is that being reasonable when the shit is hitting the fan just makes no sense at all.On Reality checking the polls posted 2 years, 6 months ago 43 Responses

less than 15 years

When I first started learning about GMOs, back in the 1980s, one of the major concerns was pests developing resistance to, in this case, Roundup. It was inevitable and became more so the more Roundup Ready crops were planted. There's also concern about pests developing resistance to Bt, an effective pesticide approved for use by organic farmers, so that when Bt is no longer effective, large-scale organic could be in trouble, too. I say large-scale because pests are always worse in large, monoculture situations, and much of the supermarket organics available today are monocropped. The same thing will happen to dicamba resistant GMOs as did with the Roundup Ready ones. And it didn't take that long either - less than 15 years.
   Now I'm no scientist, but it is my understanding that as precise as genetic engineering may seem to layfolks, in fact it's not. And while it's hard to think of something that takes place on the level of genetics as violent, it is in fact a violent process: crossing species boundaries, forcing DNA from one organism into another totally unrelated organism.
   Info on the late blight resistant potato is quite interesting and I find myself wanting to know more about this (late blight can be a scourge to tomatoes as well, which are related to potatoes which is why you don't want to grow tomatoes in plots that potatoes were in the previous year and also why you want to rotate such crops from year to year if possible. Unfortunately this isn't possible in my small garden and so I struggle with various (organic) means to keep one step ahead of the blights which are all-too-common in the wet, humid summers that have become the norm in New England.) Despite this interesting potato, I can't find it in myself to relax my guard against GMOs. And while it may be possible that GMOs could be used for good, the fact is right now the majority of GMOs exist to make companies like Monsanto rich. And unintended consequences are all too common for GMOs as well. On Pesticide efficacy is decreasing posted 2 years, 6 months ago 22 Responses

Loss of ski country

Loss of ski country may not seem that bad when thought of in recreational terms, but "ski country" is made up of mountains and their own ecosystems that have evolved with snow cover. Loss of ski country in those terms will be disastrous, for humans (and human economies - I live in "ski country"), and for every creature and plant and tree that calls these mountains home.On Arctic sea ice and global thawing posted 2 years, 6 months ago 4 Responses

I'm there

Wiscidea, re: "And although I display great pessimism at times, although I'm on the verge of giving up several times each day, I have not yet given up." - I'm there with you. On On a new McKibben editorial posted 2 years, 6 months ago 18 Responses

Vision

We have to have a vision. I like what you've done so far. The rural areas need to be integrated in there somehow re: transportation especially otherwise we'll still need cars to get around. To me, such a decentralized in many ways, bioregional in fact, way of living only makes sense. The problem is we are so far from there that the all-too-common response is similar to Bill's. I like the way Rynn paints the vision, so one can clearly see it. It reminds me of drawings a group of folks did way back in the 1980s for a publication called Rain, out of, I think it was, Portland, Oregon. Interested to read other responses because this is as important topic.On Concrete images of a greener society posted 2 years, 6 months ago 27 Responses

Random thoughts

As I read through these posts so many thoughts came to me it's hard to know where to begin. Anyway. One thought was all the business people who fly for work, some of them several times a week. There are people who own homes in a community outside Portland, ME, for example, or Burlington, VT, who commute to their job in Boston or New York. I couldn't stand it but it's a sacrifice they make so their families can live in a rural environment. To me this seems absurd. I wonder what percentage of air travelers are business-related? I only say this because of the many remarks against tourist-based air travel.
    Unfortunately, we are going to have to curtail air travel, and we should start now. I say unfortunately because of my own experiences traveling both for "work" and for pleasure (I often combined them). As my friend and traveling companion says, "Traveling expands your dream time". I found being in certain places, being open to the energy, made me aware of different aspects of myself, especially spiritually, and my relationship with the Earth. My consciousness expanded in some way and the process doesn't stop when you arrive home. I hope this makes sense. That said, getting to know the special energy and character and stories of the places where we live is wonderfully satisfying, and this is especially true when you find a place that speaks to you. You can visit it often, in reality, not just in your dreams.
   What if everybody did it? Excellent question. It brought back memories of me being a little girl walking on a path in the woods with my mother and father. I wanted to pick a wildflower. There were several, it's not like it was the only one there. But when my mother told me I couldn't and I asked why, I only want one, she asked, But what if everybody picked just one? I got it, and I never forgot it.
   And yes. Businesses are going to market global warming. It sucks but it's the system we live in. We need to change that. On Travel to exotic lands ... posted 2 years, 7 months ago 82 Responses

The only game in town?

I don't know how many times in my mind I've thought exactly what Ken expresses in this piece - minus the scientific language. I first learned of climate change when working on tropical/temperate rainforest issues over 20 years ago. It was not something most people, or activists, talked much about. And at the time the changes were supposed to come about gradually so the sense was, I guess, that there was time . . .
    Time has come and gone and here we are, more aware but really not much better off with regard to dealing, realistically, with the issue. Yes, many times I, and others I worked with, were told to temper our language, to not sound so fatalistic, to not bring spirit into it, to distance ourselves from the "radicals" and "zealots" who demanded "unrealistic" things from people, and then of course there was the matter of funding. There has always been a divide between small-scale grassroots activist groups and the large NGOs. But today there seems to be a chasm.
   Sometimes I don't have a clue what an environmentalist is or if I even want to be labeled as one, though I love this Earth with all that I am. And I am attached in particular to the life of Earth now, to the species alive now, outside my home, on the mountains I can see from the kitchen window, on the paths, in the rivers and streams and bogs I've explored from the time I was a young child growing up here.
   Letting go of attachments . . . something I need to learn. But this way? By having to let go of what feels like the essense of home itself? It's hard and I'm not sure I can do it. So I hold on and I do feel terror and anguish and, often, despair. I have to remind myself that Earth will always be, that somehow life, of a sort, will continue, and consciousness will always Be.
    That said:
    The May/June issue of Orion arrived recently with part two of Curtis White's series "The Ecology of Work". Gristmill folks had lots to pick at in part one, so I'll be interested to see what folks have to say about this piece. But I felt like standing and cheering out loud when I read it yesterday. I've worked with people who rant against capitalism, and I've done the same myself over the years. I've worked with people like Richard Grossman, helped organize a couple of TOES meetings (The Other Economic Summit that took place at the same time as the G-8 Summit; I'm not sure TOES exists anymore), and worked for years to open people to the possibilities inherent in community-based economic solutions/models/enterprises.
   As I saw it then, there were those working to create alternatives to the capitalist system. There were those who served as bridges between the new and the old, and there were those who, so they claimed, were working to change the old from within. The latter were always at risk of being co-opted and often were, at least as I saw it. Once someone gets access, gets "a seat at the table" they begin compromising themselves and their organization for the power, for the money potential, all in the guise of becoming more effective in winning over the mainstream - that vast, amorphous pool of potential volunteers and donors - that, once won over, will increase power, and on it goes.
   So we have the greening of corporate America, we have socially responsible investing (which could have been a useful tool, but now exists to perpetuate itself - and make investors rich), and so on. Good ideas start and then get stuck and become a part of the problem.
   Think about our society, about all the stuff that we use, buy, eat, dispose of, the work we do and why we do it. Reading White's article I thought, well my job isn't like this. I'm not a cog in the machine (I work part time at a natural foods store and I enjoy it and my co-workers; it's a good thing in my life). But I get the point. My job is made possible by selling stuff that other people who may be cogs in the machine make. The stuff in my store may be less toxic, more natural, even good in many ways and certainly people need to eat and eating organic is a good thing. But my store could still exist in a community/regionally based economy. Some of the companies whose products we sell, would not. Ideally they would be replaced by something local, or at least not imported from thousands of miles away. However, I  assume stores like Wal-Mart, Gap, Nike, etc. would not exist. But, the thinking goes, without those jobs, those jobs mining resources, making stuff, and selling stuff, what would people do? How would they "Make a Living"? Those are the questions, aren't they? Those are the questions people asked of me years ago when I'd go around speaking about community-based models. And those are the questions people ask now when they're told our lifestyles must dramatically change if we are to survive.
   And more to the point of the challenge White faces with regard to how environmentalists are just as caught up in the capitalist system as any cog in the machine, those are the questions we must find a way of answering. Hint: the answer will not be a vision of job for job replacement. The answer is a shift away from the current paradigm to different way of living. And we don't know exactly what it will be like.
    I also love that White sees spirit as "the best chance of defeating the 'beast'. "Beast" refers to capitalism via a quote from Voltaire, you'll have to read the piece, too long for me to quote directly now. Here's the part I want to quote: "Environmentalists should stop depending solely on its alliance with science for its sense of itself. It should look to create a common language of care (a reverence for and a commitment to the astonishing fact of Being) through which it could begin to create alternative principles by which we might live.  . . . The establishment of those principles . . . would begin with three questions. First, what does it mean to be a human being? Second, what is my relation to other human beings? And third, what is my relation to Being as such, the ongoing miracle that there is something rather than nothing?"
   Answering the question, "What are we to do?" with three more questions may not satisfy those who want concrete answers, but the answers to those questions will determine the specifics of what we do next. Do we continue as we are because it's "easier" and "less risky" than total change or do we risk total change and perhaps (no guarantees) find (after a while) a new world, richer in feeling, spirit, opportunity, and even life than we have yet experienced? It's like you can take a known path that will bring you to "civilization" but it will be degraded, filthy, unpleasant and perhaps deadly - but it's known and familiar and maybe even feels safe - or you can walk into the unknown, which could be deadly - or not.
    Certainly White's article isn't perfect. The large number of humans present on the Earth at this moment in time is problematic and could be used as an argument against White's ideas. After all, unless we have this huge, corporate, capitalist, global system set up how can we expect to feed, house, clothe, etc. all the billions of humans? Like I said, there are no easy answers. But I am convinced that the way out is not the way we got here, even if it appears to be the only game in town right now.On It's time to accept dire climate realities posted 2 years, 7 months ago 16 Responses

A dream

In the past few months the media has, it seems to me, greatly increased its coverage of climate change. It's like it's okay now to talk about it. It's so different than even a year ago. Of course the more we learn about climate change, the worse it gets, but I think that (in my positive moments, and this must be one of them) people will get frustrated and even angry with the government, with corporations, with any entity they feel isn't doing enough given what's predicted to happen. I mean today on the radio I heard a report on the maple sugaring season in New England, which is one of the worst ever. Then I heard a remark about there being only 15 to 20 more years of sugaring due to climate change. Whoa! This is the kind of thing people here can really wrap their mind around. Sugaring is as much a cultural thing as an economic thing. It's something families pass down through the generations, along with the farm and the maple bush. It's not the same as losing a factory producing widgets. I'm hoping that more information like this will make it into people's consciousness and lead to many wonderful kinds of actions. Even so, I know there's not much hope for the maples. Their fate seems locked in place. What I hope is that the lobby that defends the Earth is comprised of the people of the Earth rising up, finally, to speak and demand change. I can dream but it's still possible.On On Revkin's piece on poverty and climate change impacts posted 2 years, 8 months ago 8 Responses

regional impacts

Then I guess we'd better get started figuring out those regional impacts because that's what it's going to take to get people to understand what's at stake. If people aren't concerned enough by what we already know about the impacts of rising temperatures, melting glaciers, etc. etc., it they need it to be more personal than that, then some folks should get together and start looking at the local situation. We don't have to know exactly what's going to happen in order to extrapolate possible consequences and develop action plans for the future.On 'Supporting global warming initiatives is tantamount to endorsing communism and the one world order' posted 2 years, 8 months ago 27 Responses

Humans

We are living climate change right now. But putting the human element into it is only beginning. We need to show people how the science will translate into impacts where they live, specifically. For me, losing maple trees, snow in winter, polar bears, beautiful beaches, and on and on are totally compelling. Their loss feels very personal to me, like losing a loved one. But I know not everyone is like that, and perhaps I feel so strongly the way I do because I've grown up in the country, in the mountains. It's what I know and love. But I, too, need information about the changes, very specifically, we can expect and plans, concrete, practical plans, for how to deal. Even if I don't live long enough for them to be put in place, it's so important that they exist for those who are alive. People are going to be hurt, badly. We are all going to experience some kind of loss, depending on where you live. The information on all this does exist but not necessarily in the mainstream media, at least not in depth. They gloss over it, mention it in a paragraph and quickly move on to the next item with barely a breath in between. I've seen this. We all have. No one wants to freak anyone out, lest they begin to sound like, well, like the  much maligned "scare-tactic environmentalists". (I know I'm one, occasionally, for better or worse.)

As for loving humans. Yes, I definitely love humans, especially specific humans. Humans in general though, I sometimes despair of. But it's nothing personal, really. Some of the people I most greatly respect, Thomas Berry for instance, believe that humans have great potential and have much to add to the beautiful composition of energies that is life. I have to trust them. . . On 'Supporting global warming initiatives is tantamount to endorsing communism and the one world order' posted 2 years, 8 months ago 27 Responses

animals are where it's at, too

To me being an environmentalist has always meant a concern for wild life. The environment is not just a plot of ground with trees and plants, it's a whole community of beings. But then I identify more with the concept of deep ecology than strictly environmentalism anyway, and I see the world as imbued with consciousness and spirit -- all of it not just human beings. So I welcome stories about polar bears and tuna and mosquitos (although I'm not worried about mosquitos becoming extinct any time soon). There are times, I admit, when I avoid reading such stories (except those on mosquitos) because the animals are just so awesome and magnificent and their fate so tenuous that it breaks my heart and I may not feel like crying just then. I can't imagine it being okay to shoot a polar bear (or a tiger or an elephant) just like I feel certain types of fishing (as described in the recent National Geographic post and others in the past) should be banned, regardless of economics, sushi be damned. My local tv channel had a news item about the filming of the series Earth and showed a mother polar bear coming out of her cave in the spring followed by two cubs and I just lost it. Seeing how the huge bear rolled in the snow, oblivious to her fate, obviously just totally digging being alive and being a polar bear . . . I mean I could see the expression on her face. Total contentment. Total trust. And to think she and her cubs could starve to death or drown. Sometimes I wish I could go back to being that innocent . . . On Nope, still hunting posted 2 years, 8 months ago 6 Responses

Frustrating

Unfortunately, "Economic activities that are done that are detrimental to other people's property have always been restricted since the time the US was settled" does not apply equally to everyone, or I should say, every entity. You and I have to abide by certain standards but all bets are off when a corporation wants to do something that also happens to be detrimental to other people's property. Mining, clearcutting, pesticide runoff, corporate hog farms, the list goes on and on of activities that are much more than trespassing or a nuisance that citizens try, often even mostly without much luck, to stop or prevent in the first place. Just a comment on that statement.

More on-topic: Twice in the past week pieces have appeared in the local paper I write my column for on how climate change. One exchoriated what he calls "the Cult of Gaia", I think in large part thanks to my many articles on Gaia and climate change. This columnist teaches 8th grade history here in town, believe it or not, and is the father of one of my son's friends from high school. He's intelligent and should know better, but he doesn't. A Michael Creighton fan all the way. The other was a letter to the editor that lambasted "leftists" for trying to ruin the wonderful life we've created for ourselves here in the U.S., as well as "high priest" Al Gore for his lavish lifestyle, etc. What these folks are attempting to do is cast doubt on the science by insisting there are plenty of reputable scientists out there who disagree with the IPCC report, number one, and distrust in the messengers, number two, pointing out every inconsistency they can find between our talk and our walk. I have no idea how successful they are with the first, but I know they do have some success with the second. And it's frustrating. People like this associate dealing with climate change with a loss of our supposed freedoms, similar to the argument against zoning here in a rural area (a communist plot, no one is going to tell me what I can and can't do with my land, etc. etc.). These folks are definitely trying to put a major crimp in transforming towards a more sustainable, ecological way of living, and they may succeed, at least in the short term. Once more people find themselves negatively impacted by the changing climate they will be less effective, but we need to make major changes now. It's frustrating for sure. On 'Supporting global warming initiatives is tantamount to endorsing communism and the one world order' posted 2 years, 8 months ago 27 Responses

choices

I think one of the main reasons community structures are flimsy here in northern New England is because of economics. People have bought into the same myth of work, work, work, growth, growth, growth, as they have every place else. The fact of our very ruralness works against closeness. Most people live outside of towns and have to drive miles to work. Local agencies that once helped people have been consolidated to save money and so are often far away from the small towns where they are most needed, assuming they have enough money to do their jobs in the first place.

On my street, many of the oldest houses are now second homes, including the ones next door and across the street from my sister and I.

When I first moved here I tried three times to start some kind of "earthy" group. There was much initial excitement but eventually "normal life" took over and people missed more and more meetings until the energy was simply gone. Most people here have to work two, sometimes three, part time jobs to make ends meet. Either that or their full-time, higher-paying job is so all consuming they don't have time or energy left over for anything except, if they're lucky, their family. Being in a tourist area, many folks have to work nights and weekends as a matter of course.

There's a local green group that tries hard but is often overwhelmed by what I call a "rabid vegan" who insists on bringing every issue, from agriculture to peace to climate change down to the fact that people eat meat. This gets tiring and no one wants to be judged all the time and so the group is kept marginal which is too bad. One of the reasons I started Gaian Voices (my little newsletter) is because I had to do something to put a different perspective out there and it seemed starting a group wasn't going to work here. It's very different from Vermont where there are many groups all working on a diversity of issues from local to national to international. Although even the groups I worked with in Vermont were pretty elitist. Not as bad as the 'rabid vegan' but still looking down on those who just didn't see the world the way we did. And I'm embarassed to admit that I can see I did the same thing at the time. Now I know we must find ways of working together despite our differences. Climate change could be the great uniter in a way, bringing people together in community. Hopefully that will happen, soon.

As for me, I've made the choice to work less for money. I work 3 days a week for a marginal salary but at a great job [a small locally-owned natural foods grocery] with people I like very much serving a community of wonderful customers. We laugh a lot, commiserate about politics, share our love of the Earth, and laugh some more. I value writing, my newsletter, growing food and herbs too much to give them up to work more hours just for more money. My sister gets a monthly check because of her accident, which, combined with my small income, enables us to keep the bills paid and not much else. This is a choice I've made, one I've made for pretty much my whole life, one that probably will end up screwing us (my sister and I) as we get older. But I have time to visit my kids, to sit and think, to spend time in contemplation (something most people don't even understand), to listen to the birds sing as they feed at the feeders out back. I can spend time (too much time, actually) at this blog. I can't imagine working five days a week. How does one have a life that way? Even when I did work every day, it was as an activist, doing work I believed in with my whole heart. I try not to think about what might happen should I get seriously ill or develop a debilitating disease like arthritis or whatever.

I do envision myself moving in the next couple, three years to be nearer or even with close friends/family, to grow as much food as possible, digging a root cellar, learning how to make wine, teaching life skills like gardening and canning and drying and tincturing to others because we're going to need to do these things. I pray this isn't just a fantasy because I feel it so strongly in my heart. But I don't see it happening here because here it still feels like every person/family for themselves. Although these mountains called to me all the years I was in Vermont, and moving back was such a blessing. Ah the bittersweet realities of life. . . On Bill McKibben questions thinking as usual when it comes to climate. posted 2 years, 8 months ago 3 Responses

Yes

Dr. Leo. Yes, absolutely. Changing the context is the only thing that makes sense, reframing the conversation rather than engaging in a "he said/she said" debate.

Re: why climate change has to play by different rules, I always assumed it had to do with who stands to get richer from the status quo, from postphoning major changes as long as possible. There's not a lot of money on the line (I don't think) with the other examples you listed. I guess I'm just cynical that way.On Facts alone will never cut it posted 2 years, 8 months ago 45 Responses

oh my

Another we have to consider, too, is people would rather not feel that they have to deal with climate change. People want to believe the crisis denialists. So if you have six talking heads and the denialists are more interesting to listen to, laughing and all, poking fun  . . .  

I managed to slog through about 2/3 of the debate and oh. my. god. It was so boring. As has already been said, one can integrate facts with passion and emotion. One can try and bring the facts home in some way to the audience rather than talking about climate change as the process that will happen out there somewhere. Make it personal. Get people to pay attention. I mean really. If they can have Michael Creighton up there, and that's supposed to mean something, to have credibility with the public on this topic in any venue, then environmentalists can show some emotion about the facts.

And yes, this is a problem, and has been a problem as long as I've been involved with the environmental movement. Acting as though one cares about something is like wearing your heart on your sleeve, to be trite about it. It's risky. You can be ridiculed. Your facts could be discredited simply because of your passion. You risk not being taken seriously. The exception, of course, is at rallies and actions. On Facts alone will never cut it posted 2 years, 8 months ago 45 Responses

synthesis (again)

Wiscidea, your understanding that we are "all traveling through life together as a single being" is not what the general public, at least not the general public I know, has grasped as yet. It's true and indeed wonderfully magical and mysterious and science does support it, especially physics and cosmology, but if it were the general belief our culture would reflect it and it doesn't. Mainstream is not there yet. And while "board feet" and "natural resouces" may seem so 19th and 20th century to you and me, that's how they are written and spoken about in the media and in general conversation (board feet not so much in conversation, but natural resources absolutely).

Science is important, no argument there. But science has its own world view and it's only been until fairly recently that science has begun to understand that there is no way we can separate ourselves from whatever it is we are studying or experimenting on or researching. Just our presence, just the fact that we ask a question and seek answers has an influence on what it is we are seeking. We are participants, always, never just observers. There is no such thing as "objective".

Where does our sense of right and wrong come from? That's a mixed bag for sure. Our genes, our environment, our spirit, our soul (dare I say that?). As every parent knows, babies are not born blank slates. Each individual has a unique personality, character, innate intelligence, and even (I believe) a way of seeing and being in the world. For instance, I always wanted to "change the world". I had conversations with my mother about it when I was five and six years old. Even then I saw things that made no sense about how we treat each other and nature and animals and I thought that if people just knew . . . whatever . . . the truth as I saw it in my five year old mind?, that they would wake up, like an ah-ha moment. I can clearly hear my mother saying to me, "Susan, people are not like that. They don't change just because you want them to. You're going to have to have broad shoulders if you want to believe that." My mother was honest with me even then. And she was right, too. But I persist. And my shoulders are broad, but not as broad as I'd like them to be, metaphorically speaking.

In my experience environmentalists don't have much problem with ethics but they do with metaphysics and spiritualityl. It's okay to talk about spirituality and consciousness privately, among ourselves, but don't do it publically, not if you want to increase constituents, not if you want "them" to donate money to your cause. There's a fear that being overtly spiritual will be confused with being religious and being religious with religious fundamentalism. And I do understand why this is so. Which is why I think the language we use is so important. If we can somehow add a sense of spirit and mystery to our language, along with the facts and science and logic, that would be a very good thing. Again, synthesis.On A new call to walk the talk posted 2 years, 8 months ago 39 Responses

good article

This is a thought provoking article. I quoted a bit from it in a post a while ago. I think White is absolutely right about so much of what he says here. I do, however, believe that corporate power is a major issue, but in fact the Monsantos of the world have only as much power, and money, as they are allowed to take. Our current system is set up so that making a profit is in every corporate charter. Everything else, including values that socially responsible investors support, comes after. It's in their "nature" to be that way because human beings declared that's the way it has to be.

I've had many conversations over the language we (activists) use and also over the proclivity of many nonprofits, and pretty much all of the bigger ones, to refuse to seriously challenge the system. It was okay to rail about corporate power and the bad guys but we still had to keep our "solutions" within the parameters of what the system would be comfortable with, i.e. the "rational", the "logical". There was no room for spirit or emotions, no room for a different way of perceiving nature or even the nature of change itself (except within Native organizations, of course), at least not in what was said and done publicly. We are in an incredibly tenuous situation and we need to be willing to take drastic actions at every level (I wrote this yesterday elsewhere, sorry for the repetition). We absolutely need to take "the collective risk of leaving this system entirely and ordering our societies differently", as White states. It's like we're sticking the tips of our toes into frigid water, looking around to see if anyone has actually put their whole foot in, and waiting for that to happen before doing it yourself, and so on. It's very difficult to get wet that way. You just have to take a deep breath and jump in.

Unlike getting wet, I believe in the case of lifestyle transformation, we need a few people to jump in with us or we'll likely drown. But once a few brave groups/extended families/whatever do it, more and more will follow very quickly, I believe, and at that point the system itself will be forced to change or face collapse. Happy thought, that.On A new call to walk the talk posted 2 years, 8 months ago 39 Responses

responsibilities

When we approached businesses to participate in our local currency, we made it clear that they should only accept the currency for a percentage of what people bought, 5% maybe or 10%, to prevent them from accumulating more than they could realistically expect to spend. And we were also careful not to dump too much of the currency into the community for just the inflationary concerns you mentioned. Organizers of projects have a responsibility to be open and honest with all participants about the advantages and disadvantages of the currency.On All the cool kids are using BerkShares posted 2 years, 8 months ago 12 Responses

It's ain't easy

The single issue focus of most environmental organizations used to frustrate me no end when I was involved in the nonprofit world. Coalition building is recognized as essential but in practice is exceedingly difficult to do and, especially, maintain over time. Control issues are major concerns - having to consider other issues as important as your issue- funding is another problem. Funders (at least when I was writing proposals) want to see a clear focus on one issue. They want the problem outlined, they want to see a vision and goal with a timeframe and clear ways of knowing when the objective has been reached. It's very dificult to focus on a diversity of issues at once in that mindset. On the one hand, it's easy, and fun, to create that vision and to identify all the pieces and how they work together. It's nearly impossible to fund it (unless that's changing?). You have to go at it piece by piece and hope that you can get enough support to put all the pieces together. And this is when it's one or two compatible groups working together. When you have a few organizations used to being independent of each other, with their own agenda and egos and fundraising strategies, well let's just say it's no fun anymore. Obviously this needs to change because the only way we'll move forward as a culture is to address issues of equity (not to mention survival) along with the fate of the living Earth of which we are a part.On Aristotle in the climate age posted 2 years, 8 months ago 8 Responses

taxes, etc.

I could be wrong, but I think the taxes comment was directed at individuals using local currency among themselves, not necessarily currency used at stores. Like everything else, people have to decide for themselves how they're going to deal with it.

Re: rent and necessities. The more a local currency is used, the more likely it will be accepted for rent and other necessities. Everything that's offered within the community currency system is listed in a directory, so all participants know exactly what they can and can't use the money for. As it becomes more trusted and understood, it will expand. Wal-Mart dollars, however, don't cut it. On All the cool kids are using BerkShares posted 2 years, 8 months ago 12 Responses

Both/And

I agree, it's got to be both/and. A certain amount of climate change is going to occur regardless of what we do from now on. Climates are going to dramatically change in the next 50 years. An article in one of our Maine Sunday papers focused on changes in forest composition, how this will impact loggers and others who rely on working forests for a living. It also pointed out the demise of the maple sugar business, which is already happening to a certain extent, and moving farther north to Canada. People who are alive now will be alive in 50 years and we need to begin planning for such changes. And we need to do everything we can to decrease GHG emissions and all the rest. We have a lot of work ahead of us.

And while it appears that adaptation efforts benefit only specific places, my personal belief is that because everything is connected, the Earth is one whole, then anything we do that eases the burden on Earth, where ever it happens to be, will benefit the whole Earth. Change happens in places, where we live. On Come gaze at your navel for a while posted 2 years, 9 months ago 17 Responses

Go deeper

I just finished reading "The Idols of Environmentalism" by Curtis White in the current issue of Orion (part 1 of 2). White speaks directly to the topic in this conversation as well as the valuing nature conversation several days ago. And since what he says is what I've been trying to say, in slightly different language, I want to share two quotes here:

First: "[T]rading carbon emission credits and creating markets in greenhouse gases as a means of controlling global warming is not a way of saying we're so confident in the strength of the free market system that we can trust it to fix the problems it creates. No, it's a way of saying that we are frightened by the prospect of stepping outside the market system on which we depend for our national wealth, our jobs, and our sense of normalcy that we will let the logic of that system try to correct its own excesses even when we know we are just kidding ourselves."

Second: "The belief that corporate power is the unique source of our problems is not the only idol we are subject to. There is an idol even in the language we use to account for our problems. Our primary dependence on the scientific language of "environment" . . . is a way of acknowledging the superiority of the very kind or rationality that serves not only the Sierra Club but corporate capitalism as well. . . . I am not speaking here of the notorious problems associated with proving scientifically the significance of environmental destruction. My concern is with the wisdom of using as our primary weapon th rhetoric and logic of the very entities we suspect of causing our problems in the first place. . . Environmentalism seems to conclude that the best thing it can do for nature is to make a case for it, as if it were always making a summative argument before a jury with the backing of the best science."

To be effective, we need more than this. We need to go deeper in both our thinking and our use of language, the danger being, as White points out, and as I have also written on numerous occasions, that we come to believe this language and mindset ourselves. It's affirming to read articles in publications I respect that say essentially what I've been saying in slightly different language or from a different, though connected, perspective. As long as we let those who have been identified as being "the problems" determine the terms of the debate we marginalize ourselves and risk being co-opted. The argument that we need to talk their language in order to be taken seriously rings hollow to me.On There's a coalition waiting posted 2 years, 9 months ago 60 Responses

skewed priorities is right!

Jason's comment reminds me of a conversation a friend of mine and I have periodically. She cares about the environment but is more of a humanitarian. I care about people but am more of an environmentalist. She thinks it's important to donate $ to causes that Jason might give higher priority to after his guinea worm nightmare, so that's what she does. I, on the other hand, while totally believing in the importance of helping humans, will donate my money to those working more directly on Earthy things (except after Hurricane Katrina I donated some money to a local veterinarian who made several trips to New Orleans to help abandonned animals). There have been times during this conversation with my friend that I have felt as though she's telling me it's wrong for me to give priority to the Earth because people are suffering and that's more immediate. But I can't help where my heart is and, let's face it, we need people to care about, and support, many, many causes. Not to mention the fact that we can't all do everything.

I think wiscidea got it right, though - it's not an either/or issue. It's a both/and issue. Right now we're spending (according to the latest Mother Jones) about $275,000,000 a day in Iraq. Wow! Think of all the guinea worms we could kill with that money. Think of all the people we could feed, educate, teach to fish, etc. Think of all the conservation land we could buy, all the restoration work we could accomplish, etc., etc. That's where our priorities are skewed and that's what we should be looking at.On How do you choose yours? posted 2 years, 9 months ago 54 Responses

That's it

What I saw happen is the media declared the IPCC report definitive when it was released, and the report said that the warming we're seeing is caused by human activities. It was like suddenly everyone knew and accepted that climate change is real despite the fact that they knew it was real before then. Okay, it's real, now we have to figure out what to do is kind of the feeling I'm getting from "average" people I hear talking about it. The report, and the general acceptance of its findings, has made it much more difficult to ignore climate change or try to stay in denial of it. Now we have to help people take the next steps. First to show that, indeed, the report is very conservative and things will probably be worse and happen sooner, and then to implement plans and strategies at all levels. We need to use the report and move beyond it to get where we need to go. And, of course, sunflower is also right :)On Debate shifting post-IPCC report posted 2 years, 9 months ago 29 Responses

come visit

Pandu, come visit me in late spring when the mosquitos are out full force and you might change your mind. When you arrive, presumably in a car, the mosquitos will swarm you the minute the door opens a crack. Step out and they are on you. Hundreds of them, no lie! In the evening, sitting on the screened porch it's freaky to look out and see them on the screen just waiting for a chance to light on flesh. I joke how I have to cover myself from head to toe with chemicals (DEET) to work in my organic garden. I buy the highest concentration I can and have to reapply it every couple of hours. I keep my fingers crossed I won't get poisoned. And backyard picnics? Forget it. The grandkids playing happily outside? Forget that, too. I'm grateful for the bats and the birds who feast on them and only wish they were more plentiful. On Environmentalism's confusing accounting posted 2 years, 9 months ago 59 Responses

Out of comfort level

In my activist days I used to fly often, to conferences and workshops and speaking engagements. One of my topics was bioregionalism. I'll never forget David Haenke's reply when someone asked him, "What is a bioregionalist?" "Someone who flys around the world telling people to stay home" was the answer. At first I loved flying but it got old. Compared to those days, I rarely fly. The last time was to Greece, a little over two years ago. It was a ghastly flight, comfort-wise, but worth it. Places aren't all the same, certainly western culture has more than its share of influence but the differences are real and important and every time I go someplace that's culturally different I learn so much, including about myself and my place on the Earth. It renews my spirit, gives me hope, and expands my dreamtime, as my friend and traveling companion puts it. Airports, on the other hand, suck. Coming back from Greece we had to connect in Zurich. It was early morning and we were hungry for breakfast. What were we faced with but yucky chain "restaurants" offering precooked crap. And we weren't even in the U.S.! After Greece this was such an insult. I was angry and frustrated and almost burst into tears. I think if more Americans visited other cultures we would have greater respect for differences, and less fear of them. We're so used to sameness. Moving out of our comfort level is important and maybe it would even help motivate us to make changes at home. Just a thought. On When is it necessary, and what are the alternatives? posted 2 years, 9 months ago 39 Responses

complicated

David, it might not be less complicated but it could be simpler. I just finished editing an interview I did with Brian Swimme (mathematical cosmologist, writer, producer, teacher) to send off to a publisher so after reading your post this immediately came to mind (normally I might not make this connection): Swimme was talking about how Alfred North Whitehead believed that the universe "complexifies in a way that is elegant: the more complicated it gets, the simpler it becomes. Humans can participate in this aspect of the universe by giving shape to our habitat, to our towns and cities, so they merge almost seamlessly with the complexity of the natural world. The ideal would be for our architecture, economics, chemistry, all of these, to become enhancements of the elegant complexities of the universe in which we find ourselves." How we might do this has yet to be created, but it must be possible. I believe we are about transformation and that it's time to expand the conventions we now take for granted (economics being one of them) to reflect more humane and ecological values. I get what you're saying and I'm not totally opposed to it in the immediate moment for expediency. But my role is pushing for that transformation and I won't be satisfied with anything less. It's why I'm here this time around.On Environmentalism's confusing accounting posted 2 years, 9 months ago 59 Responses

Exactly

Caniscandida, that second paragraph is pure poetry! On Environmentalism's confusing accounting posted 2 years, 9 months ago 59 Responses

Au contraire

I believe that those of us who do see Nature as inherently valuable in more than monetary terms have a responsibility to keep plugging that perspective. I understand that the general sense is that most people don't or won't get it but I'm a bit more hopeful, I think. In my experience many folks agree (maybe not most but more than just a few) in principle, that Nature is priceless and valuable beyond cash. It's just that they don't grok the whole picture. I live in a region that is rife with cabins and McMansions and everything in between plunked down by rivers, lakes, in mountains and on ridges, and the vast majority are second homes, some with hopes for retirement in a few years. They "love" nature and that's why they want to live in it. As my father used to say, they are loving it to death.

This is what we need to get across. People in general don't understand how fragile ecosystems are. They don't see what they're doing in the context of what everyone else is doing elsewhere and the impact it has even on things that aren't specifically touched. For example, growing up there was a wonderful woods behind our house. I spent all my time there, took my boyfriends back there as a teenager, cross-country skiied through them to the downhill ski area, "ran away" to them when I got frustrated with my parents. These woods were full of wonderful wildflowers and my favorites were the pink, white, and (rare) yellow lady slippers. Every spring I'd watch for their emergence, anxious to see if any large white ones would come up amongst the pink. It was a ritual of mine from the time I was about six years old. Then whoever owned the woods sold some lots for second homes. Even though no homes were built on the spot where the ladyslippers grew, those ladyslippers gradually disappeared. Today they are completely gone. We don't have to destroy something directly to kill it. Just being there is sometimes enough. How much are those ladyslippers worth do you suppose?

I think it's extremely important to clearly put forth a perspective that does not always equate everything with money. If that wetland, say, was "valued" at 5 billion dollars does that mean we need to pay the owner 5 billion dollars not to develop it? I'd be willing to bet there'd be plenty of landowners who would demand to be compensated for the lost development "value".

And if I had the disposable income to plunk a cabin down somewhere, I'd rather take that money and rent something that already exists for a week or a month or whatever. A cottage on Crete, for example . . . sigh . . . , or an apartment an ancient city. . . . I get to see and experience more of this wonderful Earth without plunking anything anywhere.On Environmentalism's confusing accounting posted 2 years, 9 months ago 59 Responses

HG TV

There's a show on Home & Garden network (I think it is) called Living With Ed. Ed is a total eco-geek and his wife is always arguing with him over his latest thing. I've only seen the show a couple of times and although I wouldn't want to live with Ed, that has nothing to do with his lifestyle. Ed probably seems eco-extreme to most tv watchers but there's some good ideas and it's interesting to see what one family can do, when convenience is not your main concern.
Katherine, I'm a sucker for Two and a Half Men, too. It makes me laugh for some strange, perverted reason . . .On Tell us when green bursts from the screen posted 2 years, 9 months ago 7 Responses

Wonderment . . .

In my best moments, I know that's what it's all really about. If we feel awe and wonder more often than not, I can't help but believe the world would be a better place. And not only because we'd be happier, more content people, but I think we'd also want to be less destructive and careless. The awe would translate into respect and compassion and . . . Ah it's a wonderful dream.On This Bertrand Russell quote seems relevant to today's climate debates posted 2 years, 9 months ago 7 Responses

Having our cake and eating it too

It's a conundrum for sure. I remember many  years ago, when I was still married and publishing a newsletter on social investing called Good Money, having a conversation with my then husband along just these lines. Social investing is all about "doing well while doing good" and the idea is to invest in companies that you think are the good guys while avoiding those that you think are the bad guys. The goal is to ultimately change the bad guys into good guys because they will eventually see that, over time, good guys make more money. Of course it's not that simple in real life. Anyway I was more radical than my husband and his father (who started Good Money in our farmhouse in Vermont back in 1981), so it was rare that a corporation ever met my high standards, which is why I published my own newsletter called Catalyst: Investing in Social Change. But every once in a while a corporation would do something, well, good - like Wal-Mart's current plan (assuming it's for real). Of course I would have some reason why it wasn't good enough. Finally I had to admit that the only thing that would make me happy is for every huge corporation to disappear off the face of the Earth because they were part of a system that is inherently unecological, often unjust and just plain wrong. I still feel that way deep down, although I have to temper those feelings with a strong dose of reality while, at the same time looking in the mirror at my own imperfect self. Sigh.On All these green initiatives, oy posted 2 years, 10 months ago 9 Responses

Trees

provide shade on a hot summer day, cooler and cleaner air when planted in cities and parking lots. They prevent soil erosion. They provide beauty, grace, and inspiration, homes for animals and birds, and food for them, too. Trees are food for our spirits and the oldest of them offer wisdom to those who would listen.
On Mmm ... oranges posted 2 years, 10 months ago 21 Responses

Disgusting

Just disgusting.On Sounds ... whaaa? posted 2 years, 10 months ago 17 Responses

I remember

peanut butter that smelled like tobacco, milk that was always going sour, rubber hamburgers, tuna pea wiggle (oh my god!) on saltine crackers, canned beets (that I never ate but that totally turned me off beets until I finally dared to taste some from a friend's garden about ten years ago (totally different, I grow them now, too), and vats of ketchup to pour over everything. We need to encourage school gardens kids plant and maintain and eat from. There are programs that do this. I don't think they allow blue popsicles (I used to love them!) or powdered donuts anymore.On Maverick chef Ann Cooper aims to spark a nationwide school-lunch revolution posted 2 years, 10 months ago 20 Responses

Address class issues

We absolutely need to address class issues if we expect to address climate change realistically, which is something that most environmentalists seem oblivious of. Even those who understand the reality of environmental racism don't seem to get the class thing. Not all poor people are people of color. Not all white people are wealthy or even close to being wealthy. They aren't all even middle class (a class that is quickly disappearing anyway).
    As I've pointed out elsewhere, grassroots movements need funding, lots of it to succeed. Funding comes from wealthy people or foundations supported by wealthy people. In my experience, it is extremely difficult to raise substantial money for grassroots efforts. Instead they are supposed to be supported by volunteers, underpaid staff, local donations, and prayers. The big money goes to the big groups tackling sexy issues in splashy, public ways (the most bang for the buck). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt things have changed all that much since my non-profit days in Vermont a few years ago. Oh, we also had several trust-fund "babies" who could afford to work without pay. The culture was like this: If you need to earn a salary then you need to get a "real" job, not expect your nonprofit work to support you. Since I was seriously committed to the work I was doing while raising 3 boys alone, I was often on the receiving end of such comments, despite the overwhelming opinion of my colleagues that the work I was doing was necessary and valuable. Yes, it was frustrating and yes it often pissed me off. I also ran into situations where if I had been a single mom of color I would have qualified for financial assistance to present my work at conferences, events that I was actually invited to because my work was considered so "valuable". But since I am not a woman of color the assumption was that I could raise the money myself or somehow have it magically appear in my (non-existant) bank account. So yes, there was a real understanding of the economic plight of people, especially women, of color in environmental circles but not the class issue which impacts every race to some extent. I didn't make an issue of it because I didn't want to be labeled "racist" by some of my white-so politically-correct colleagues, and as luck would have it family circumstances demanded that I pack my bags, and my kids, and move to Maine to take care of my disabled sister. I have no idea how things would have eventually worked out had I remained an activist in Vermont.
    Now, dealing with the very real danger of climate change I see the same thing happening. Once we get beyond replacing light bulbs and curbing consumption we need to begin the real work of lifestyle transformation. And this does take money, at the community and at the individual/family levels. We need to public transportation where none exists (like where I live), and where it does exist it probably needs to be expanded. We need to seriously retrofit our homes and businesses which takes money. Not just tax breaks because if you don't earn enough to pay taxes then they don't help much. Incentives that benefit higher income and wealthy people don't have any impact on those of us at the lower end of the income ladder. And proposals for increased taxes on fossil fuels or carbon taxes, if they are applied equally across the board, will seriously hurt lower income people and people living on fixed incomes who are already paying a higher percentage of their income on energy.
    I'm in the process of trying to figure out what changes I can make in my two-person household that will make us part of the solution and not a lesser part of the problem. My dream would be to move to some kind of community where we shared things like cars, plows, washers/dryers, gardening, splitting wood and other labor, but not a community that tells me how I have to live, what I can and can't eat, what my spiritual beliefs should be, etc. Co-housing would be close to ideal except for the fact that it seems one needs to be quite wealthy to buy into it. No way is my house worth what I'd need to get for it to move into any of the co-housing projects I've researched thus far. So I'm continuing to research and I'm hoping that in the next two to three years I've found an answer my sister and I (and the Earth) can live with. I have to believe that if environmentalists took on issues relating to class my search would be more successful.On A single-issue movement won't cut it posted 2 years, 10 months ago 15 Responses

It doesn't surprise me

that native peoples are being forced to pay for our excesses and greed. And how ironic when logging proceeds at an incredible pace right here at home. Literally. The landowner next door to me is cutting every tree from his property, from the smallest sapling to huge grandmother maples. Nobody is worrying about those "carbon trees".On Carbon offsets and human rights posted 2 years, 10 months ago 3 Responses

Go deeper

Good so far, but depth is lacking. In my opinion we need to go deeper. I don't know how to "elevator" it but it will take more than surface blurbs and actions to change things. We need a transformation of values that will lead to green actions and changes. I know, I know it's a hard sell but at some point we're going to have to deal with the values thing. We need to shift the focus of the debate from items on a to-do list to, as Bart said, a culture change. Culture is the context for what's going (or not going) on.On The meme all the kids are talking about! posted 2 years, 10 months ago 22 Responses

Yes. . . .

I too, thought the "informed gut feelings" interesting because, well, it seemed David was writing about me. I have "informed gut feelings" and was like, "Yes. Right on with that one!". That it might be an oxymoron never occured to me, but I understand where you're coming from, canis. To explain myself, my feelings are "informed" because, well, I know so much about climate change. But I suppose someone could know as much and have a gut feeling exactly the opposite of mine. If so, I hope they're right and I'm wrong. But I've been having gut feelings on climate change for many years and they have most always, unfortunately, been right. One learns to trust gut feelings over time. I had a lot of experience after my sister's accident caused severe brain injury and put her in a coma for 8 weeks. At the same time my mother died of cancer and I was pregnant with my youngest son. So a lot was going on. And I learned to absolutely trust my intuition (gut feelings) about my sister's prognosis and recovery. Even when every doctor told me there was virtually no hope. But I knew and I have never forgotten that feeling. So when I feel that way, about anything, I trust it. I must say, however, that it can be tricky when there's fear involved.
  On Some thoughts posted 2 years, 11 months ago 72 Responses

Action

The discussion re: action should also be about ethics and morality because obviously values aren't enough. Who, I wonder, comprise this "we" here: "The argument here is about values, not science: How risk averse should we be as a society? How do we balance the environment against other goals of our society? Etc., etc., etc." Who decides how we respond to those questions? Scientists? Legislatures? CEO's? People in the US? The western world?
   And then I wonder how one can balance the goals of society against the environment? My biggest frustration, and I'm sure many if not most here agree, is that there are so many actions and changes that should - and actually could - be done and yet the debate goes on. Science says "yes climate change is real, these are things that are happening now, will happen, and could happen in the future". We all know there's pleny of unknowns. So far, however, most of the past unknowns we've come to understand haven't revealed a less serious situation. On the contrary, it seems things are more unstable than origionally thought. There doesn't appear to be any good news with regard to climate change down the pike. Not unless we take drastic action, the specifics of which will vary from region to region.

People ask, should we focus on adapting? Should we focus on preventing? Like it's an either/or issue. We have to do both because it's already happening and adaptation will be essential. Unfortunately the non-human world doesn't have the ability to figure out how to adapt. For polar bears to adapt to a world without ice would take generations and generations and that's not going to happen. That's what sucks. And the longer we debate over how much we're going to risk, the more we lose. For me personally on a physical level, I know the kinds of changes necessary will be difficult, but emotionally and spiritually I'd feel a great deal of relief, and maybe not as much doom hanging over my head, knowing at last that we're on our way. Anyway, if it's hard for me, it will be hard for everyone esle too. So we'll be in it together, which is more than is happening right now as we move about in so much isolation in so many ways.

Sorry for the rant. I try to avoid going on and on. But the words came pouring out.On It muddles the science and policy debates together posted 2 years, 11 months ago 47 Responses

How depressing!

I admit I didn't read every word but I get the drift. I'm especially depressed about the housing predictions since I'm hoping to sell my home for a smaller, more efficient, and closer to caring community one in the next year or two. But then I don't own a mansion or a tacky thing that will fall apart long before the mortgage is paid off. And I'm more concerned about getting what it's really worth rather than an inflated price and I'm told if you're selling with a realistic price there are buyers. Still when your home is all you have the idea that it may be losing value isn't great news. And we can stay here it's just that I want to move toward being part of the solution not a smaller part of the problem and it's just not going to happen here.
   On the other hand, I couldn't help but cheer at the predicted downfall of box stores etc., because they are dominating and taking over the consumer economy here (or rather in Conway, NH which is the next town over and the impacts are felt in this little Maine town where I live). Right now a Lowes and Home Depot are being built practically across the street from each other and right next door to a locally-owned lumber/home supply store that has been here for as long as I can remember. And then there's the outlets, acres and acres of them, and I'd dearly love to see them gone with trees and weeds sprouting in the acres of black pavement parking lots . . . which now simply add 10 to 15 degrees to the already overheated summer temperatures.
   The Orion article is much better as he gives options (ones that I've written about and supported and tried to convince people to support for the past 20 years) rather than just the bad news. Still, as my critics are fond of saying, while I know they are the way out they just sound so impossible given the reality of our politics, our economy, the mindset and world view of most people, and the desire to deny what's going on in favor of . . . well, I guess in favor of letting our kids and grandkids deal with the shit that hits the fan.
   Where are good miracles when you need them?On Things will fall apart posted 2 years, 11 months ago 18 Responses

Thanks

ian for the info. I'll check it out online. I know dimmables exist I just haven't found any around here.
JMG - that sounds like a great plan but I've heard nothing like it from my power company here in Maine. They did offer rebates for buying CFLs a while ago. Plus I've noticed the prices have come down quite a bit from the early days. Not to mention that the sizes have changed too so  now they fit all my lamps which they didn't before. The dimmers are the only ones I haven't been able to change over.On Wal-Mart pushes CFLs posted 2 years, 11 months ago 17 Responses

Once again

here's the money quote: "There simply is no regulatory solution to the millions of tons of searingly fetid, toxic effluvium that industrial hog farms discharge and aerosolize on a daily basis. Smithfield alone has sixteen operations in twelve states. Fixing the problem completely would bankrupt the company."

As I see it, the company be damned. Bankrupty is the least of what should happen to Smithfield. This kind of pollution and blatant disregard for the land, for the welfare of animals, and for the people themselves just can't be legal. It should be stopped at once, regardless of the consequences to Smithfield, the principals of which should end up in jail, or perhaps in one of their toxic lagoons . . . Of course that's not going to happen and this fact itself is both sad and disgusting. On Hog wash posted 2 years, 11 months ago 2 Responses

Willa

I am so with you on your quince tree being more news than lots of snow in Colorado. And I, too, am sick of the idea that the perfect day must be sunny and warm, even in Maine, even in what should be "the dead of winter". It bothers me a great deal, deeply saddens me, that we're losing one of our seasons -- one of my favorite seasons in fact, and to be frank, it pisses me off that so many people who live here, supposedly of their own free will, seem to be welcoming the effects of climate change. On Vancouver's submerged seawall posted 2 years, 11 months ago 31 Responses

No surprise

This is really no surprise, and activists who oppose cloning have no definitive proof that eating cloned meat poses a problem. On the other hand, those who support it have no definitive proof that it doesn't. No one has eaten cloned meat or slurped milk from cloned cows long enough for there to be statistics one way or another. But, in when the agenda is controlled by those who benefit one way or another, precaution is ignored in favor of profit. Ten years down the road we may discover many problems we didn't know existed today. At least cloned animals aren't going to be spreading their genetically engineered sperm all over the place like the GE pollen from plants.
   The thing that gets me with all of this (and with GE foods, too) is no labeling will be required. So once this stuff comes on the market the only thing those opposed to it can do is not buy meat or milk except from small-scale, local farmers who promise not to use cloned animals. (Which isn't such a terrible thing, really). Also the industry will probably try to use legal force to forbid farms and markets from labeling as they did with dairy producers that labeled their products BGH free.On Ew posted 2 years, 11 months ago 21 Responses

I still say

we have to wake up and look around. The "proof", if you will, is everywhere. Perhaps, living in a colder climate makes it easier to see than if one lived in a warmer climate year-round. But everywhere I look, and everything I read about what's happening in other, normally colder climates, indicates something is afoot. Most people want to believe that what we're experiencing is "within the bounds of normal" or is "an anomaly and next year will be different", at least this is what I keep hearing even from the weather people on tv and radio. Or they say, "Well, it's winter and so it's bound to get cold, we're bound to get snow at some point, right?" And they'll just keep on saying this until spring comes, earlier than "normal", etc.
    So, yes, it comes down to who one wants to believe, but we also have to look and see for ourselves, and believe what we see rather than go into denial mode like the powers-that-be want us to.
   Unfortunately, not everyone is convinced that climate change is a bad thing. Face it, most people do not read as much in depth on this subject as those of us posting on Grist appear to. I've been keeping up on climate change for 15 years or more and so have many others who post here. And so many of you can get into the nitty gritty of the science, much more than I do. What I try to do is translate what I learn, to the best of my ability, into language so-called ordinary people can understand. This is what I've tried to do on many topics in the course of my writing/activist "career". I also bring emotion and spirit into it, hoping to touch people, awaken people that way because the intellect isn't always enough. But I have come to understand that not everyone even cares. Not everyone mourns the loss of snow or cares if the maple trees die. Something else will fill the niche, or that's what is assumed, and life goes on. And really, the fate of snow and certain tree, plant, and animal species is, pardon the expression, just the tip of the iceberg. But if one is in denial or lacks the ability to think in terms of the whole rather than what will impact them immediately (which is a lot of folks), things like rising oceans, stuck jet streams, melting permafrost sound like the stuff of science fiction. Certaintly not something that will impact them in their lifetimes. I'm not sure what can be done about this but I can't help but think that if enough people were convinced that climate change would negatively impact their lives in two or five or even ten years they just might act differently today. We're in a situation that causes us to live in two different worlds: the world of everyday - work, pay bills, save for the future; and the world of tomorrow where none of that will matter because we'll be in crisis mode and whether your house is paid for or you have a few thousand in savings or investments (assuming investments are worth anything) just have no relevance. We need to act as though things were "normal" and, at the same time, act as though they aren't. A difficult task and it goes against the way we are taught in a system that strives to create square pegs for square holes so the system keeps chugging along.On What do the climate scientists think? posted 2 years, 11 months ago 24 Responses

More hope

I'm getting ready for a Christmas journey to my son's but I couldn't resist "evesdropping" a bit. And then couldn't resist making a comment. Yes, it is very hopeful global population is dropping. For whatever reasons. Unfortunately, many of them include war, poverty, etc., etc. Still, a population drop is a good thing when looking at the whole picture.
   At the same time we can't put walls around this country, this part of Gaia in what we call North America. We can't do it ecologically, and we can't, or shouldn't, do it with regard to people. As has already been pointed out, people immigrate for many reasons. Some immigrants would much rather stay in their home countries but political or economic realities make that choice difficult or even deadly. Some come here for the illusive "American Dream". I can't find fault with any of it. How can we say, a few generations after we arrived, "Sorry, there's no more room?" We have to find a way to make it work. Sometimes it is our faulty, misguided, or even corrupt  international policies and actions that create influxes of immigrants. Or faulty policy we support either outright or under-the-table. There's the whole world economic system, export/market/capitalist-based, supposedly free, that has a tendancy to screw people on the bottom wherever they live. And our press is good. People what what they think we have.
   We need to transform what we think we need and address the gluttonous overconsumption that is the real cause of resource depletion, loss of wilderness, loss of what is real and beautiful on this Earth. It is not welcoming people to a better life that is the problem, it is what that "better life" has come to mean.
   Where I live the problem isn't overpopulation, though it has increased. The problem is development for more box stores, more parking lots, more superstores, more second homes, by-passes and resultant development on the road side, and eventually more roads going off into what used to be forest or field. Immigrants have nothing to do with it. Decent housing has nothing to do with it. It's all about making more money and the result is destroying more of the little wild that is left on the planet. People don't seem to get that we have a responsiblity, not only to those who live in this specific place but to the Earth as a whole. We need all the last vestiges of unpaved, uncut, unbuilt-upon land we can get. And it's just as much a spiritual thing as a physical thing. We need to stay whole and we can't do it without Nature.
   I do think, and this is a sign of hope, that more people are beginning to grok the reality of the whole. They're beginning to understand that what we do at home does impact places and species far away. What they do with that information remains to be seen, but it's a first step.On Like a Top 10 list, without 10 posted 2 years, 11 months ago 16 Responses

I wish. . .

The Chamber of Commerce in Conway, NH (just over the ME/NH border from my town, in the Mount Washington Valley region), recently hosted a climate change expert to speak at one of their member events. Some of what he said was in an article in yesterday's paper. Things like in 2075, this region will have a climate like Washington, DC or Raleigh, NC. No more snow and skiing is a big deal here, a huge percentage of the economy. That the maples and fir trees will die, replaced with oaks, so no more beautiful fall foliage, no more maple syrup. He talked about the economic impacts to NH and the local region due to the changing climate given that tourism makes up the biggest chunk of the economy. This is assuming we continue as we are. I ask: Why are people here doing nothing? How can businesses continue to expand, expand snowmaking, expand rooms, space, etc.? How can we continue to build more roads, approve more development in former woodlands or fields? How can people make such shitty decisions given what they know? Sunflower is right. It's a huge disconnect. I have regular column in that paper I referred to above and folks must be getting tired of reading me because it seems that every other column is on climate change. Some new information, some different angle, because it's all I can think about. It doesn't only cross my mind occasionally, it's on my mind all the time. The losses deeply sadden me. I may not live to see the worst of them, but I'm already seeing changes and I'll probably hang around for a few more years yet since I'm pushing 54, so I'll see plenty more. I try to treasure the beauty that surrounds me today, knowing how impermanent it is. I only wish that I could believe, like the generations that went before me, that winter would always bring snow and that my favorite places will remain constant despite the passage of years.On They don't go well together posted 2 years, 11 months ago 19 Responses

Love . . .

All this talk of fear. Yes, global warming terrifies me. Not for me personally, although before I die my lifestyle may very well change, and not for the better, directly due to climate change. It terrifies me because it's so big and all-encompassing and it threatens everything I love . . . and there's the key, I think.

In my years as an activist traveling around speaking at conferences, giving workshops, etc. it was easy to spout facts that engendered fear in some of those who listened. That's what I wanted to do. I wanted people to pay attention to what we're doing to the Earth, whether it be rainforest destruction, clearcutting old growth, the free trade agreements (and so on) which were the issues I worked with back then. I wanted people to be fearful so they would DO SOMETHING. But I learned after a relatively short while (thankfully) that it just didn't work. Either people already knew the litany or they didn't and it paralized them, or, like Willa's nice old lady, they just don't want to hear it because they feel powerless to impact it. And there were always those who just didn't believe.

What I have learned is that people change most readily when they are doing it out of love. For their kids, for their spouse or lover, for their home place, for the Earth. I'm not talking about an intellectual kind of love, I'm talking passion here, I'm talking love that moves one to tears in the right circumstances. That kind of powerful emotion that goes deep can cause people to make even difficult changes. A woman with heart disease doesn't necessarily change her lifestyle for herself, but she will do it for her kids so they don't lose their mom and suffer the pain of her early death. One can love the Earth just as strongly, and when you have kids and also love the Earth there's great motivation.

So maybe one idea would be to present the facts, absolutely, but find a way to do it that incorporates personal stories and experiences that touch the heart. Story is a powerful tool. People like Thomas Berry and Brian Swimme and Deena Metzger, to name a few, talk about the need for a new story that shows the connection and oneness of human beings with the Earth and the Universe and the Cosmos. A new Creation Myth based on real science which is in fact more mysterious and magical than anything we could think to make up, and that connects us through time with our ancestors and the future.

In a practical sense (because I can sense some rolling eyes here), the reality is love in all its forms, from the attraction of molecules one to another that creates matter on through friendship, passion and romantic love, to bliss (which is called other names in different cultures) is the most powerful force in the universe. It creates, it heals, it transcends, and it allows humans to rise to the occasion and do what is needed.On It's a disaster, not a catastrophe posted 2 years, 12 months ago 43 Responses

It's not just over-fishing either

It's also pollution. As I've said before, elsewhere, the oceans are dying due to pollution which doesn't help the fish at all. Dead zones are increasing along with things like red tides which impact shell fish. Oceans absorb CO2 which is good for the atmosphere but bad for the oceans as it causes increased acidity to the point that, in the not-so-distant future if it continues (and it probably will given all the non-action that's going on) shells of shellfish and mollusks will be eaten away. Rising temperatures also must be having an impact on fish and fisheries, or they will if they aren't yet.

That said, in the real world that most of us live in, people do eat fish (and meat) and want to continue to do so. While the number of vegans and vegetarians is increasing, as well as the number of meat-eaters who don't eat meat all the time for health or environmental or economic reasons, it's going to be nigh on impossible to convince everyone to not eat fish or meat at all. What one eats is often culturally determined, and there are emotional factors as well that we carry with us often from childhood. While I admire those who have the will power to totally change their diets based on information of whatever kind, unless what we eat is making us sick (like gluten intolerance, or diabetes for example) total transformations, as from an omnivore to a vegan, are difficult. Preachy moralizing won't work and in fact may actually be counter-productive.

And I agree, too, that fishing and over-fishing are two different things. Maine, where I live, has a long coastline and a tradition of fishing and lobstering. It's not just a job like working in a deli for these families, it's a way of life, a culture within the state that adds to our diversity and vitality. As I see it, there's no reason small family fishers should be forced to become laborers. On the other hand, can the oceans afford to continue to fill countless cans of cheap tuna and crab, countless packages of inexpensive frozen white fish? I doubt it. It's a complex issue. To me the "bottom line" should be first the health and diversity of the oceans, then the well-being of fishing cultures and small fishers (as opposed to large-scale corporate style fishing). On Umbra on sustainable sushi posted 3 years ago 54 Responses

Plan C

Plan C - check it out. There's definitely something to be said for it. For one thing, it's something people in communities can actually do. I don't understand why there isn't more interest in it because when you look at what the future could hold, given the present moment and everything we're not doing, we're going to need each other and we're going to have to create community/regional webs of support for food, housing, transporation, heat . . . you name it. My belief is that I'll live to see the need for this but I know there are plenty of people out there who have a much distant timeframe. I hope they're right. It gives us more time to make a difference in the outcome (maybe).On No new subsidies needed posted 3 years ago 17 Responses

When in Athens

embracing the chaos is the only way to go. I ditched all preconceived ideas when the taxi we took from the airport arrived in Athens, in the oldest part of the city. It was amazing. Cars, trucks, three wheeled delivery vehicles, lots of scooters and motorbikes, people walking everywhere, cats, dogs, the narrowest streets, sidewalk vendors, remnants of the digging and construction from creating the new train system, and everyone, it seemed to me anyway, digging it. Wow! I loved it and I'm not a city person at all. (Though I did not and never would drive in Athens.) Being in Athens was an out-of-this-world experience and I can't wait to go back to Greece (though visiting Crete is next on my fantasy list).

Re: this topic, I have mixed feelings. I agree that we are over regulated and I do my own rebelling on occasion. On the other hand, it's not just people who are being regulated, it's corporations who are considered "people" legally (though that's so bogus it's hard to believe it's actually true) and they just can't be relied upon to do the right thing. Nor can all people. Although I wonder if sometimes too many rules cause people to try and get away with as much as possible, the consequences be damned.On Rules make people mean posted 3 years ago 4 Responses

Re: externalities

I'm not an economist. But for almost 20 years I was active in the community-based economics movement, which has successfully created numerous institutions such as land trusts for all sorts of purposes, community currencies (one of which I helped get off the ground in Central Vermont), revolving loan funds, financed by investors/lenders, that make loans to enterprises denied financing through more conventional institutions, women & minority-owned banks/credit unions, worker-owned businesses, etc. Then there's the broader field of ecological economics which integrates an awareness of the impact human activities have on the Earth, as well as taking cues from healthy ecological systems to inform how the economy should ultimately work. Looking at relationships, scale, feed-back loops, the importance of diversity, for example. I know this is not the economics you're talking about but they are real-world economic relationships that work and that can be (and are being) replicated successfully in this country and around the world.

I also know that the term externalities came from economics. Acknowledging that they exist doesn't change anything, however. As Sasha said, economics hasn't done a great job of internalizing the externalities so that they have the impact they should on how our economy operates. If the true cost of all those externalities was figured into the cost of operation, corporations would long ago have cleaned up their acts. It would be too expensive to do otherwise. Instead what we have are corporations that try to get away with as much as possible, going to great lengths to do so. Many of our regulatory agencies are peopled with ex-CEOs or other major players, the so-called "revolving door", and once their stint with the government is done, they often return to the corporate world. No wonder regulations either have no teeth or regulators seem to look the other way. I know this is not the fault of economics, perse, but it is what happens and it does impact markets and artificially inflate profits.

The problem with externalities is they are hard to quantify. Some costs, cleanup for example, medical expenses, stuff like that, can be figured out. But how can one quantify death, pain and suffering, loss of habitat, species extinction? Or the more subtle impacts of polluted water/air/soil on our emotional and psychological well-being? What about the spiritual dimension, that is so valuable (but not quantifable) to most of us whatever words we use to describe it? Economics is one set of tools, one piece of the whole. But that's it.

And Re: fisheries. if things continue as they are, we won't have them to worry about by mid-century according to recent bad news. Fishers fishing fairly freely despite regulations, is one of the problems, but so is the decreasing over-all health of the oceans, which are becoming dangerously polluted -- all those externalities rearing their ugly head in the real world for us to deal with and by harmed by.

I have no problem with economics, perse. What I have a problem with is using economics as the ultimate litmus test for what "works" and what doesn't in the real world. On Calls the Mounties -- someone's enjoying locally raised meat in rural Ontario posted 3 years ago 28 Responses

More than logic

Devashi, I have the same questions you do. I can't fathom people who actually think like response 2. As you say, they usually have kids, even grandkids. People who really believe this, I think we have to write off as far as climate change is concerned. They simply think we're nuts to care. Whether there's something there, under the surface, that is so fearful of climate change that they have to bury it, I have no idea. Either way, we aren't going to be able to wake them up. I don't think the percentage of folks like this is all that high - at least I hope not.

With regard to the first response, I wish I could believe this, but I can't, and one of the reasons is because there are so many contributors to climate change, and the Earth's ecology, everywhere is being impacted. There's just so much we don't know to think that we can even begin to solve all the problems with technology. Not to mention the fact that technology itself creates negative impacts, like Kip noted above re: computers.

And adapt - humans probably will because we're so resourceful and we can tolerate so much. Even small numbers will be enough to ensure that we don't become extinct. But what kind of life would humans have in a post-climate change world? How much destruction would those alive during the most volatile times have to witness? How much pain and loss? Not only of loved ones but of beauty and comfort and spirit and joy. Loss of our home places, sometimes in actuality, other times to extinctions. Here in New England for example, loss of maples, snow, untold plant and animal species. Think of it. No maple syrup. No snow angels or sledding. No more breathing in clear cold January air, or feeling snow flakes melt on your face while standing in the hush of a winter snow at night . . . All these wonderful things could be, probably will be, gone in 100 years if things continue as they are.

Personally, I don't want to adapt to that world. But I'm not everyone. There are people who don't care and there are people who have such faith in technology that they won't listen. Perhaps examples where technology has failed would help, and there are many. The thing with technology is, it is controlled by fallible human beings. We are not perfect and we are not all-knowing. I have no doubt that technology holds some solutions. And I have no doubt that when/if enough of us put our minds and hearts and spirits into it, we come up with more.

And then there's the unknowable impact of qualities - compassion, gratitude, joy, understanding, increased awareness, for example - and actions like prayer and meditation, ritual and ceremony, all of which have energy and impact in subtle, or not-so-subtle, ways. Past and ongoing research studies demonstrate their real-world impact, especially with regard to healing.

We need it all. The best techology has to offer; law and policy changes; institutional, community, and personal changes; greater compassion for, well, basically everything and everyone; even, dare I say it, prayer, whatever that means to you. Whatever your thing is, do it. There's no reason to offend and there need be no dogma. The point is to offer our best selves to the task, to put that energy out there however works for you.

The cosmos, the universe, and ultimately the Earth and everything and every being here is pretty wonderous; and there's so much we don't know. The more we learn, the more amazing and even impossible at times, it becomes. Personally, I sense that the creative energy and possibility inherent in what we don't know, in the place of mystery and the unknown, may ultimately be what saves us, or, to put it differently it may be the essential "something" that enlivens and empowers our tangible, "real world" responses rendering them more effective. You can think of it like "the sum is more than the total of number of parts" kind of thing, which we've all experienced on some level at some point in our lives.

I guess what I'm saying is that at some point we will have exhausted all reason in trying to convince folks. Human beings aren't always reasonable and we each have our own brand of logic. What's logical to me may not be logical to you. I do believe, though, that eventually reality will speak for itself. Climate change will impact everyone equally -- skeptics and believers alike. But by then, will it be "too late"? That's the real question.

And Kip, yes you're right of course (I'm assuming your statistics are but even without them, your point is well-taken). That's my big, huge frustration. As individuals living in a world that basically denies the need for immediate change, with regard to energy, transportation, agriculture, etc., etc., we will continue to be the problem no matter how much we'd like it to be otherwise, until our country begins addressing these issues at the neighborhood and community level - the level will which enable real change of both actions and relationships. To do this we will need legislative and policy changes at the national and even international levels, along with the transformation of economic policy and accounting procedures and processes. In short, the transformation of our political, social, and economic systems is essential if we are to make changes at the level and scale necessary given the reality we're facing. Not impossible. Just unlikely, if you look at the situation logically - which is why I embrace a more-than-logical worldview. On 'There is no evidence' -- Yes, there is posted 3 years ago 59 Responses

Ahhh. . .

computer games are quite something. When my boys were growing up the big thing, at first, was the little, hand-held Game Boy. Then along came Nintendo. I had some adult friends who loved to play with the kids, but I never got it. Those games are nothing like the ones kids play today. The speed, the graphics, the special effects, and yes, the violence - I can't imagine it doesn't have a negative effect on kids.

My 7 year old grandson went through a period of time, when his uncle, my youngest, was staying with them and he had the "latest" in gaming stuff, that my grandson became actually addicted to the games. He'd have a fit when his parents would turn the thing off and wouldn't want to do anything else. They took  him off cold turkey and now he's extremely limited as to how long he can play (or watch TV). It's much better.

I remember reading somewhere that too much video games and television can shorten kids' attention spans. And it has to do something to their view of reality, absolutely. But then I'll never forget one night when Nick (my grandson) was about five. We were watching The Three Stooges, which were on one of those old movie channels. And all of a sudden, out of nowhere, Nick bopped his father over the head, hard, just like one of the Three Stooges just did. Of course it wasn't funny on the movie. Every once in a while over the next few days his parents would catch him doing the Three Stooges thing. It eventually wore off. On Children, anxiety, and global warming posted 3 years ago 14 Responses

My two cents

I have three, now grown (29, 27, 25) sons. For all of their childhood I was an activist and instead of working at a "real job" I wrote books and articles, started a non-profit organization, spoke at conferences, organized events and projects, and lived very close to the bone, as they say, so that I could follow my heart and work for the Earth, which is how I considered it. Sometimes I think my kids thought I was nuts, and I know they felt sorry for themselves at times, especially the youngest, because there wasn't money for non-essentials, and sometimes not even for essentials. There were times when they resented what I did because it made them different from their friends who had parents who worked "real jobs" and had more money.

On the other hand, they were more educated than their friends about the environment. They helped count thousands of signatures on petitions, get out mailings, and put up with me being gone more than they'd like. They were proud when I sent information on, for example, recycling, rainforest destruction, clearcutting, and renewable energy that got used in their classroom.

BUT . . . as they got older, early - mid-teens, they also had more moments of "I know the world's not going to be here in twenty years" than many of their friends. They didn't get that sense from me directly. It was their interpretation or internalization of the information they got from me combined with political realities. It was their logical conclusion. This was deeply troubling to me because the last thing I wanted was for my sons to not have hope for the future. I wanted them to believe anything is possible, as I did when I was their age. As I still do, though it is tempered with realilty.

During those years (mid 1980 to early 1990s) I had a sign in my office that read, "I don't believe in miracles, I rely upon them". I've seen and experienced many so-called miracles in my life. I believe there's so much more to everyday reality than what we can see and hear and touch. We exist in a complex whole that is amazing and magical (yes I will use that word). I've had experiences of connections and relationships and possibilities that to some might sound like fantasy or wishful thinking or something less flattering.

After my sister's accident that resulted in severe brain injury (in 1981, they know so much more about the brain now than they did then), they did an EEG. It revealed lots of activity (at least she wasn't brain dead) but it was totally chaotic. While the neurologist knew this didn't look great, he couldn't say for sure that her brain would not somehow make new connections and heal. I told him that "my hope lies in what you don't know". And lo and behold, new connections were made, she came out of the coma and over time and with lots of hard work, regained her ability to speak, write, walk, think, and have a good life, though it's different than what it would have been had the accident not occurred. Miracles happen, but they take work.

My sons, however, do not necessarily share my view of the world and what's possible. They are more logical than I am although the youngest is an artist and is beginning to get where I'm coming. As an artist he sees the world differently than his brothers. We have wonderful conversations about the nature of reality and human participation and what's possible.

My middle son listens and then puts the information in a compartment somewhere like most folks. On the one hand he knows shit will happen. On the other hand he doesn't believe it will, if that makes any sense.

My oldest knows shit will happen. He believes he will live to see radical changes in the environment and his vision is a self-sufficient family homestead in Vermont where he lives, big enough so that when things get bad everyone he loves can come live there and somehow we'll make it. I'm keeping my fingers crossed on that one.

But with the exception of my middle son, both my youngest and oldest have been prone to bouts of depression and I've learned that this is not that uncommon in young people these days. It can lead to risky behavior (as they say) and can rob them of the passion and drive needed to move forward.

I'm not sure what the answer is. We live in troubled times. I think we do our kids no favors by protecting them from what's going on. We're not going to give them the skills they need to live in a changing world if we deny reality to protect them. I think kids feel hopeful if they know that their parents are doing what they can to make the world better.

Telling them they'll be the ones to change things . . . not so good because, well, I can remember thinking my generation would be the one to change things, to correct the many mistakes of my parent's generation and now we're putting it off on our kids? I don't think so. I often wonder what happened to my generation that so many of us ended up being seduced by "the system" and in so doing created even more problems than our parents did. On Children, anxiety, and global warming posted 3 years ago 14 Responses

I'm going to assume

that JMG isn't serious. Besides, in 2048 I may not be here, but hopefully my sons will be and my grandsons as well. Then, for those who believe in such things, there's karma not to mention reincarnation . . . On Go veggie -- a poll posted 3 years ago 41 Responses

It's more than fishers

It's pretty sobering to learn that in a few short years there will be no fish at the market. Current fishing practices, especially those of large-scale fishers must take responsibility for this, but the fact that we're polluting the oceans like never before has to have a rather large impact on fish populations as well. It always irks me when something like red tide, for example, that has been a serious issue on the coast of Maine, is noted on the news, along with the devastation to local fishers/clammers/ lobsterers, etc. and then the reporter says something like, "we have no idea why this is happening". Come on. You can't tell me that all the crap we put into the world's oceans doesn't have something to do with it, or the changing temperature of the water, or increased acidification due to increased uptake of CO2 or something in addition to overfishing - something that we're doing.
That said, it's very disheartening and I had the same reaction as biodiv - I shouldn't ever eat fish again. And I had bought salmon for dinner, too, line caught from Alaska, before I heard the news. Sigh . . . On New report cites impacts of biodiversity loss posted 3 years, 1 month ago 7 Responses

Thanks

again for this great information! It just goes to show that it's better to use nothing at all. Too, given an increase in use of Bt, whether sprayed or GMO, the pests will develop resistance. It's best to use it, if it must be used, on a small scale only when absolutely "necessary". On the other hand, if one were to look up one of the many chemicals that are routinely sprayed on crops the environmental and health impacts statement would be long and the impacts severe.On Weigh in on the question posted 3 years, 1 month ago 44 Responses

oops

Sorry -- Twelve tipping points are mentioned in the Mother Jones article.On Some reservations about global warming policy posted 3 years, 1 month ago 20 Responses

Thanks

Thanks for the link to the Stern Report. Intuitively it only makes sense that the costs of ignoring climate change will be higher than the costs of attempting to deal with it, even though dealing with it will be costly. It's nice to have credible proof so nicely in one place. I have a regular editorial column in my local paper and every few weeks I bring out the climate change topic so it's nice to have something new and different to add to the discussion rather than trying to say the same things in different ways. There's an excellent article in the current issue of Mother Jones on the subject, too -- on the 13 tipping points, all of which are frightening and when taken together, well it's hard to see how we can not begin making drastic changes right now. I read something somewhere about how one of the main blocks to change, especially on this issue, is we have become so individualized that we have forgotten how to be connected in meaningful ways to our neighbors and community members. The only way we're going to move forward on this issue is to come together like people do during disasters.On Some reservations about global warming policy posted 3 years, 1 month ago 20 Responses

A beginning . . .

I had a moment before heading off to NY for a few days. Rather than rely on my own files, some of which are dated, I decided to do a new search. I found plenty of articles that confirm Bt crops to be hazardous to pollinators as well as soil and health. There are also articles that say there is no problem, many if not most of them from organizations that pretty much accept the "party line" with regard to the technology. In other words, it's totally safe in all ways and studies to the contrary are wrong. Anyway, I did find this one article that seems to cover most of the issues brought up in this discussion and so I copied and pasted it below with apologies for its length. I'm sorry I don't have time to put together something myself bringing in more than one source. This is a beginning anyway:

 To Bt or Not to Bt:
         The Sound Science That Brought Down Bt Crops
Angela Ryan
 ISIS News #5

Since the publication of Losey's study in the journal Nature showing that  Bt-corn pollen harms monarch butterflies, things have gone into a downward  spiral for Bt-crops.  Bt-corn is now banned in Austria, France and Germany,  and Monsanto's Bt-potato division has been closed down by its new parent  company, Pharmacia.  

'Bt' is short for Bacillus thuringiensis, the soil bacterium providing the  genes for making toxins that kill insects; different forms of which are  incorporated into GM crops. The adverse environmental impacts of Bt crops  are now well documented in the scientific literature, ranging from harm to  non target organisms to the evolution of resistance in insect pests, making  it necessary to plant a high proportion of non-Bt crop for 'resistance  management'. Aberrant gene expression in the field results in low-dose  varieties which are ineffective  in pest control and foster resistance.  Cross pollination with non GM  varieties creates Bt-weeds, and the Bt-plants themselves cause major  problems as volunteers.  Active Bt  toxin leaks from plant roots into the  soil where it is not biodegradable and  accumulates over time.  This will  have major impacts on soil health,  with knock-on effects on all other  trophic levels of the ecosystem. The recent report that a GM  gene has  transferred from GM pollen to microbes in the gut of bee larvae underlines  the fact that Bt toxin genes, like all other GM genes, will  spread out of  control.   The case for withdrawing all Bt-crops is now compelling.  The way the case has been built is exemplary of the power of good  independent science, which is indispensable for sound policy decisions.  No less than eighteen Bt crops were approved for field testing by the US  Dept. of Agriculture between 1987 and 1997 (1).  Bt cotton was the first to  be approved for commercial use (USA 1995), followed by corn, potato and  tomato.  The first specific concerns on the safety of Bt crops were raised from  within the scientific community in 1997 when Angelicka Hilbeck and  colleagues (2) showed that lacewings fed on pests that have eaten Bt-maize  took longer to develop and were two to three times more likely to die.  Organic farmers also started to voice their fears -- they have been using the  spores of Bacillus thuringiensis as an occasional insecticide spray.  Their  fear was founded in the rapid development of resistance to Bt toxin in pest  populations continuously exposed throughout the GM plant's growing season,  with the potential loss of their only organic insecticide.  They were also  worried about GM contamination via cross-pollination -- now admitted as  unavoidable by our regulators.  

Then came Losey's famous Monarch butterfly study (3), which was confirmed by  another from  the University of Iowa (4), showing that milkweed in and at  varying  distances from Bt crops in the field does cause an increase in  mortality to Monarch butterflies.  Milkweed samples were taken from within  and at the edge of the Bt corn field and were used to assess mortality of  first instar monarch, D. plexippus exposed to Bt and non-Bt corn pollen.  Within 48 hours, there was 19% mortality in the Bt corn pollen treatment,  compared to 0% on non Bt-corn pollen exposed plants and 3% in the no pollen  controls.  This second study counters all the spurious arguments that the  Losey's study was a 'worse case scenario' that bears no relevance to field  conditions.  Besides which, when Losey conducted his experiments he did not  spatula Bt pollen on to the leaves of milkweed, as was reported by industry,  he dusted the leaves in accordance with levels observed in the field.  In a desperate recent attempt to counter this evidence, the pro-biotech  lobby has just released a story claiming that pollen from Bt corn does not  harm the black swallowtail. This story has been thoroughly deconstructed  (see "Tale of the Swallowtail", this issue).  

The biotech industry is fully prepared to misreport research results in  order to confuse and mislead the public.  On Nov 2nd 1999, a scientific  meeting took place in Rosemount, Illinois, to discuss Bt corn and monarchs.  That same morning, all the major news desks round the US received a fax  carrying a News article about the meeting -- which had only just begun at  that point -- headlining 'Researchers conclude Bt corn poses little risk to  Monarchs'.  

Luckily, Carol Yoon of the NY Times was at the meeting and received word  from her editor in New York.  She asked the participants if they agreed with  what was obviously a press release from industry.  The answer from the floor  was a resounding "No" -- her report was the only accurate account of the  meeting, but unfortunately, the majority of US citizens got the industries'  take on it (5).  

After months of heated debate on the effects of Bt on non-target insects,  the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) convened a Scientific Advisory  Panel (SAP) meeting in Dec 1999 and asked the panel to review EPA's  non-target organism testing requirement, applicable to Bt crops.  The panel  found EPA requirements inadequate and urged the agency to substantially  expand the scope and quality of the studies that it relies upon (6).  

Plans for managing the development of Bt-resistance in insect pests have  been actively debated in the scientific literature, and earlier this year,  the EPA revised their original mandate and ruled for larger refuges of non  GM crop planted with the GM crop. This was hailed as a step in the right  direction and now refuges have to be at least 20%.   But major controversies  remain as to whether or not the refuges should be sprayed by conventional  insecticides (7).  

A study in the University of Arizona (8) showed that  boll worm larva fed on GM and non GM develop at different rates and it is  highly unlikely that they will interbreed, dashing any hopes of diluting out  or slowing down the evolution of resistance.  These moths mate within three  days of hatching and the males only live for a week. Also, dilution only  works if the Bt-resistance is recessive, ie, requiring two copies of the  resistance gene to be expressed, and the EPA's resistance management program  relies on the trait being recessive. Unfortunately, studies on the  inheritance of Bt resistance showed that it is a dominant trait (9) as  insects with only one copy of the resistance gene survive  exposure to Bt.  Low levels of Bt expression in Bt crops has also been  documented and also serves to foster resistance.  

Other scientists (10) have designed elaborate choice experiments that seek  to understand insect behavior in terms of 'pollen avoidance', which will  affect the evolution of Bt-resistance. However, by their own admission,  these data can not be used to arrive at any conclusions about the effects of  Bt toxin-containing pollen. This work does however highlight the need to  consider complex behavioural as well as toxicological aspects.  

In June 1999, Monsanto applied for the first Experimental Use Permit on  CRY3Bb transgenic corn,  another Bt corn line aimed at corn rootworm.  The  application has been thoroughly assessed by an alliance of four independent  non profit organizations (11), who report the most astonishing findings. The  technical study submitted by Monsanto in July 1999 contained no molecular  data, nor data on the breeding regime, for three different Bt lines.  Data  on the levels of protein expression in different tissues was included. But  300 corn plants were produced for only two of the transformation  experiments, and some of the critical measurements of expression levels were  done on only two plants.  Despite this, the data clearly indicate that  different transformations led to significantly different levels and patterns  of protein expression.  Such differences are of crucial important in  assessing efficacy, resistance management and non-target impacts, as well as  changes in the microflora of the digestive systems of livestock and humans  using the crop for food.  

Monsanto then submitted its application in full in August 1999, moving from  greenhouse-scale research to unrestricted field use in one year.  In the  covering letter they wrote; "Please note that approval of this registration  by May 2000 would reduce the need for additional submissions and reviews for  year 2000 field trials".   This statement makes it blatantly obvious that  Monsanto has no intention of investigating their findings any further with  respect to health and environmental impacts. To date their application in  full is still pending in the US  but has been granted commercial  approved  in Puerto Rico and Hawaii for this growing season.  

In Dec 1999, Gunther Stotsky and colleagues (12) reported that Bt toxin is  released into the rhizosphere -- around the plant roots in the soil -- in  exudates from the roots of Bt corn, where the toxin is protected from  biodegradation and accumulates.  This raised, for the first time, the  question of what is happening underground?   A total of 15 million acres of  Bt corn were planted in the US in 1998, 20% of the total acreage. The leaked  toxin enters the soil in an activated form -- Bt transgenes are truncated to  produce active toxin, unlike the precursor-form produced in the bacterium,  which has to be cleaved in the gut of susceptible insect pests.  Moreover,  the toxin is expressed continuously, and hence exuded for extended periods  of time.  

In organic farming the toxin is sprayed sporadically in an inactive  precursor form, only becoming active in the gut of the target insects once  ingested.  Furthermore, it is sprayed onto the surface of plants where it is  readily biodegraded.   Stotsky suggests that the widespread planting of Bt  crops is equivalent to added large doses of active toxin to the soil, not  only from the plant root but also from the plant residues after ploughing  in, as well as from pollen.  There is at present no clear indication as to  how soil communities might be affected by Bt toxin from root exudates.  It  may promote selection of toxin resistant target insects.  But receptors for  Bt toxins are present in both target and non-target insects, therefore  both  will be affected.  Bt toxins are active against insects in the Order of  Coleoptera (bettles, weevils and styloplids) which contains some 28,600  species, far more than any other Order (13).   The widespread use of Bt  genes in crops and the build up of active toxin in the soil will have long  term ecologically risks to non-target species and organisms in higher  trophic levels, such as birds.  

Simultaneously, it was reported that Novartis had filed a patent for another  insecticide to be used in conjunction with Bt crops (14).  It turns out that  the pest-control spectrum of Bt toxins is limited, and other pesticides have  to be used, that have been shown to be very damaging to health.  This  completely discredits the industry's claim that Bt is essential for reducing  harmful pesticide use.  

This April brought further reports on pockets of Bt-resistance among pests  in GM fields, and of GM cotton plants turning up as weeds in other crops  (15). The cotton boll weevil may make a  come back if such volunteers are  ignored. An entomologist at Clemson Univ. said, "I could look across soybean  fields and see hundreds of these Bt cotton plants".  A return of this pest  to parts of the American Cotton Belt would be a disaster, considering it  cost $1.3 million to eradicate them by 1995.  

The ecological interaction between organisms is complex and scientifically  challenging. The behaviour of insects with regard to choice' of food can  have important impacts. This aspect has been overlooked completely in  environmental risk assessments of GM crops.  Researchers at Rothamstead in  the UK (16) have pointed out that killing non-target species is a risk not  unique to GM technology, as conventional regimes actually kill insects in an  indiscriminate manner that is equally unsustainable.  They highlight the  need to find alternatives to conventional practices and suggest that  management and good husbandry of bio-control agents should act in an  integrated manner to eliminate caterpillars.  

The health assessment of Bt crops relies totally on past experiences with Bt  sprays in organic farming.  It is wrong to assume that Bt toxin in GM crops  is the equivalent to what has been used for over thirty years on organic  produce with no effects.  As with all GM crops, comprehensive feeding trials  have yet to be conducted and therefore there is no data supporting the  safety of eating Bt crops.  Furthermore, there is a general lack of  scientific transparency with all GMOs and Bt-crops are no exception. Crucial  data are withheld from the public domain under various confidentiality  statements made by the biotech companies in their applications for license.  

Leading US Agronomist, Charles Benbrook has just completed a comprehensive  review on EPA's management of Bt-corn (17). It provides important insights  into the structural and legal shortcomings in the approval process, the  major among which was the failure to adhere to the precautionary principle.  The summary of findings reported by independent scientists investigating or  evaluating environmental risks are sufficiently compelling to warrant the  immediate withdrawal of all Bt crops from use.  

Notes and references  

1. ISB Environmental Releases Database for USDA APHIS website :  

2. Hilbeck, A., Baumgartner, M., Fried, P.M. abd Bigler, F. (1997). Effects  of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis-corn-fed prey on mortality and  development time of immature Chrysoperla carnew (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae)  Enivronmental Entomology 27, 480-487

3. Losey. J., Raynor. L., & Carter. M. E., (1999) Nature 399,214

4. See: http://www.ent.iastate.edu/entsoc/ncb99/prog/abs/D81.html  [Non-target effects of Bt corn pollen on the Monarch butterfly  (Lepidoptera:Danaidae) L. Hansen, Iowa State University, Ames , IA 50011  and J. Obrycki, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011. Contact e-mail:  lrahnsen@iastate.edu

Obviously

people here who seem to think that GMOs are basically fine have not done their research. I've been researching GMOs since the early 1990s and have written numerous articles about them. Yes, plants are in fact being raised that have Bt in their pollen. And yes, this is killing pollinators. This is a fact. But you're right, it's foolish. Still, it's being done. Corn and potatoes specifically.

Increased antibiotic resistance is happening because of over use of antibiotics, yes, and the antibiotics in factory raised meat also add to the problem. GMOs do too because of what happens in the lab. Did you read my post a while back that explains this and quotes Dr. Mae-Wan Ho who is an extremely credible scientist? Her papers go into detail on this and other related issues with regard to GMOs. There are numerous books out there that lay out the many problematic issues - culturally, economically, environmentally, and with regard to human health - of GMOs. Just because someone has an opinion on something does not make it so. There is something called the Precautionary Principle, which basically says that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to things like chemicals in the environment, "allowable" amounts of pollution, food irradiation, and GMOs. As I've stated before, we've only been eating GMOs for ten years, and it's only been in the past five or six years that they have become insidious. So we're the guinea pigs. Maybe that 's okay with Jason and Wiscidea but it's not okay with me. Vandana Shiva speaks eloquently about this issue, and writes about it as well. Brian Tokar has written many articles and a book on the subject. www.thecampaign.org has lots of information. Of course their an organization that's opposed to it so that might lessen their credibility in the mind of someone who likes the idea, but facts are facts. And yes, you will find scientists, well-meaning scientists, who will insist that biotech is worth the risks. You'll also find those who say it's not. I've read and researched and spoken with various experts over the years and come to the conclusion that the money spent on it could be better spent on other ways to feed the world. I happen to think it's morally wrong, and one of the reasons is because of what I've learned over the years.On Weigh in on the question posted 3 years, 1 month ago 44 Responses

Apricots and plums . . .

 . . .  did not come about through biotechnology.
      Here's a brief excerpt from an article I wrote about GE a few years ago (the information is still accurate): Genetic engineering is the genetic modification of organisms by isolating genes from other plants, bacteria, viruses, and animals (including humans) and inserting them into the embryonic cells of the plant or organism of choice. Unlike conventional crossbreeding, which farmers have used for thousands of years to improve crops and animals, GE crosses species boundaries. For example, broccoli can be crossbred with cauliflower because they're members of the same family, but not with a fish or tomato -- at least not until GE came along.
    Here's a quick overview of the process: First scientists identify the genes used to control a desired trait. Then, with the help of various chemicals, these genes are extracted from the DNA strands. Next an insertion package is prepared that, in addition to the desired genes, contains promoter genes to keep the desired trait turned on in the host; penetration genes which come mostly from viruses or bacteria, to overpower the host cells' defense mechanism against invasion; and marker genes, which make cells resistant to antibiotics, to help researchers determine successful insertion. The package is then forced into the host's cells using a vector or delivery system, most commonly a bacterium. Retroviruses are often used for mammals; AIDS is a retrovirus. Other methods of insertion include exposing cells to electric fields or inoculating cells with a solution of the desired genes.
       One of the most serious human health risks associated with genetic engineering is antibiotic resistance and the resurgence of infectious diseases. As the above explains, genetic engineers use antibiotic "markers" in virtually every GE product. Modified cells are exposed to an antibiotic, the survivors contain the desired trait -- as well as the marker gene. An increasing number of bacteria are resistant to many, some even to most, of the available antibiotics. According to a press release dated April 6, 1998 from Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, professor of biology at Open University in the UK "Vancomycin resistance rose from 3% to 95% in San Francisco hospitals in the four years between 1993 and 1997. And Staphylococcus (toxic shock syndrome) is now invulnerable to all known antibiotics".
    The resurgence of infectious diseases may also be linked to GE products. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho explains, "At the heart of the issue is the . . . transfer of genes by vectors such as viruses and other infectious agents. . . . While natural vectors respect species boundaries, the barrage of artificial vectors made by genetic engineers are designed to cross species boundaries, thus greatly enhancing the potential for creating new viral and bacterial pathogens, and spreading drug and antibiotic resistance . . . Recent statistics are frightening. Infectious diseases were responsible for one-third of the 52 million deaths from all causes in 1995. Multi-drug resistant tuberculosis is now estimated to affect 10 million each year with 3 million deaths. At least 50 new viruses attacking humans emerged between 1988 and 1996. . . . The first genetic engineers called for a moratorium on the Asilomar Declaration of 1975, precisely because they were afraid of inadvertently creating new viral and bacterial pathogens. The worst case scenario they envisaged may be taking shape."
        The article these paragraphs came from was written in 1999. Still, the information is accurate. Antibiotic resistance continues to be a serious problem, along with infectious diseases. Check Dr. Mae-Wan Ho on the internet; her credentials are impeccable.
        Even if we could solve the huge issue of who really benefits from GMO, there's still the process itself which is violent (at the cellular level) and dangerous to people and the environment.
       And I agree with JoeSchmoe about the moral issues surrounding GMO. We're like mad scientists playing god. And then there's the genetic manipulation of animals. "Pharmed" goats by Genzyme Corp in MA and Nexia Biotechnologies in Canada created to give milk that contains pharmaceutical chemicals; monkeys with jellyfish genes that glow green under ultraviolet light, salmon produced by Aqua Bounty Farms in MA designed to grow fast and eat less, pigs with human growth hormone . . .  It seems we just don't know when to stop.
       Life is more than chemical reactions and strands of DNA telling cells and organs what to do. Unfortunately few scientists don't see it this way. If we can do it, then we should, seems to be the general thinking. But what about the nature of the organism itself? It's an important question that we, as a society, should be asking ourselves before we do more damage than we have already.
      The argument here seems to be that if GMO can be somehow be taken away from the corporations that now control it for profit (which under our current political/economic system is just not going to happen), and if it can be used to the benefit of the starving millions, without undue damage to the environment or people (which the jury is still out on and in fact the more we learn, the more dangerous GE appears), then why not use the technology?
      I still say there's no reason why the way farmers have been manipulating seed crops through cross breeding, creating hybrids, grafting, etc. isn't good enough. Further, we can listen to what the plants have to say. I know this sounds new agey but it's how Barbara McClintock, a biologist who received a Nobel Prize for her work on gene transposition in corn plants, did her work. She watched the corn each day, came to know each plant intimately. She respected life and widened her vision so that she could literally see and hear deeply into the mysteries of the plants she studied. She translated what she heard and saw into the language of science. This is what we need to be doing more of, not violating the basic makeup of life itself. We know a lot, but we just don't know enough.
 On Weigh in on the question posted 3 years, 1 month ago 44 Responses

Sorry but . . .

Right now most GMO food crops are engineered for two reasons: they either contain their own pesticides (Bt) or they are "round-up ready" meaning they can tolerate huge doses of Monsanto's Round-up pesticide. I know there are also some crops being grown to contain certain vitamins, Vitamin A in rice, I believe, there are frost-resistant strawberries (using fish genes) and the infamous "flavor-savr" tomato that flopped because it had no taste. GE salmon are next and there are also terminator seeds, so designed so that they don't germinate unless a special chemical is applied (this is  to prevent farmers from saving seed from year to year). There are also designer trees that have no ability to reproduce. GE pollen has already contaminated non-GE crops and farmers have been sued for this as if it was their fault.

There are many problems with GE crops. To me the most problematic are contamination of non-GM crops, escape into the wild (as has already happened with GE canola [rape seed]); and the impacts on pollinators like bees and butterflies who are killed by GE crops with their own Bt. There are real health issues for people, and animals fed GE grain as well, including increased antibiotic resistance.

Not to mention that the increased yields promised by biotech firms just has not played out. Neither has reduced pesticide use. Crop pests quickly develop resistance requiring more and more pesticides and eventually different ones.

Frankly I don't understand how GE crops can feed the world any better than conventional crops. GE was created to make money for its corporate creators. If we really want to grow more, healthier crops, the way to do it is to move away from industrial agriculture toward smaller, more diverse operations. Building the soil rather than adding nitrogen in the form of chemical fertilizers will result in healthier plants. I doubt biotech crops can be grown organically in any case (assuming organic allowed such things).On Weigh in on the question posted 3 years, 1 month ago 44 Responses

I don't understand why

it has to be local OR global. The problem is with the kind of globalization that's happening now, the global capitalist market that serves corporations and profits first, with people and the land (local people/places everywhere) way, way down on the list of priorities. Trade, global or otherwise, should benefit people and places not at the expense of other people and places. Growing food for export, while people and communities suffer, is the way our current economic system "works". People will do what they have to do for money. But the system sucks. It does not work for the majority of people and it sucks the life blood out of communities and the Earth.

It makes sense to produce locally/regionally as much of what we need on a daily basis, especially with regard to food, as possible, using trade to fill in the gaps.

As far as bringing everyone in the world to "middle class", I'm not sure about that. The middle class in this country is fast diminishing as the disparity between the rich and everyone else increases. I'm not sure the planet can support however many billions of people living a middle class lifestyle.  How many planets would that take, anyway? (The whole ecological footprint thing). I know this subject has been discussed in other places on Grist but I truely believe that those of us fortunate enough to live a middle class (or higher) lifestyle will be called upon to downsize because of the finite planet thing. (And I know this includes me).

Kmp is right on!

Can organics feed the world? Over time, I believe it could. After all, what did people do before the so-called "green revolution"? which, as you probably know, came about because US corporations asked the government's help in finding peace-time uses for chemicals developed during WWII. You could say, well, what about all those pesky insects and diseases? A major part of the problem has to do with the large scale of agribus farms and the total lack of diversity. When you plant many different crops and intersperse them with certain flowers and herbs you create a more natural environment with checks and balances for critters and diseases. Not to mention seed diversity etc., etc. Anyway, the "green revolution" was supposed to solve world hunger. Unfortunately it only made things worse. Now corporations want us to buy into biotechnology as the next big thing to feed the world. We're going from the frying pan into the fire. You can't just come up with one or two solutions and expect them to work everywhere. Each place is unique and solutions will differ. It's not simple. And I believe the place to begin looking for solutions is at the local level and then moving outward (rather than the other way around).On Business Week cover story looks at the watering down of the organic ethos posted 3 years, 1 month ago 29 Responses

Bigger isn't better

Stonyfield Farm wanted to be big so now they are. But that comes with a price. In fact, one could say that the price of being big was such a major transformation for Stonyfield that the origional company died. This happens often; it's especially happened with those early socially responsible companies (Ben & Jerry's is another one, Earth's Best Baby Food . . .). Somewhere along the line owners decide to take a risk to grow the company by offering "blue sky" stock. Once the company goes public, it must continue to grow. If it's successful, it's noticed/coveted by a large company that wants to reach the "green" niche and at that point it's all over. Now it's not only a few companies, it's the whole organic "industry" that is caught up in the grow-at-any-cost dynamic of our current economy. So importing freeze-dried organic milk from the other side of the Earth, regardless of how un-Earth friendly it may be is expected, no one blinks an eye. Our food system needs to be regionalized, localized when ever possible. Instead of one or two organic yogurt makers, each region should have its own. It's the only thing that makes sense, long-term. It's a shame that creative entrepreneurs like Gary Hirshberg, Ben Cohen, etc. didn't, instead, take on apprentices who would be taught the skills and eventually, when the time was right, loaned some investment capital to start their own independent company in their community. It could have happened that way, but the dominant system won out.

Organic is a value at its heart. It was supposed to mean more than just inputs. Again, appropriate scale is the key. At some  point being big becomes a liability. We need to learn to recognize when that is and then exercise the will to stop at that point. On Business Week cover story looks at the watering down of the organic ethos posted 3 years, 1 month ago 29 Responses

Yes!

This is excellent. And Jan knows what he's talking about.

I was so disheartened two/three weeks ago when the media reported the discovery of more oil, deep under the ocean. And the past few days gas prices have dropped significantly. Now this may be good for my budget, but in the larger scale of things it's not. People so don't want to face the coming reality of inadequate fuel supplies, knowing full well how devastating it will be given that we rely upon it for virtually everything we do, that they'll take every and any opportunity to think about it tomorrow. And people have such faith in technology. For instance, Jason Scorse in a Grist discussion on happiness and the GDP wrote in response to my post, "I am a technological optimist who believes that the Earth CAN SUPPORT 9 billion people with a very high standard of living in a sustainable way with better efficiency and technology".

My gut tells me this is not possible, and even if it were in theory, unless we do something to get there starting, well, yesterday, the speed at which climate change seems to be progressing may make our technological abilities totally inadequate. A downward dip in prices, temporary I'm sure, and the discovery of oil the drilling of which even experts say is a challenge for current technology simply will buy us some time. I suppose it's too much to ask that we use it wisely, because whether in five years or twenty years petrocollapse is coming. If we're smart we'll begin the process of transformation Jan suggests, at the local and regional levels. Where's your ecovillage, indeed.On Here's how posted 3 years, 2 months ago 28 Responses

Don't know nothin' bout lobstas

Biodiv, I can't argue about lobsters because I have no experience with lobsters. Whether dogs and cats suffer depression and anxiety equivalent to humans, I have no idea. Some may, others may not. Not all humans suffer those emotions to the same degree either. We're individuals. Some dogs may suffer more than some humans. How are we to know? I can't know what another human feels let alone another species. I'm only going from my own experience, from what I observe and from what I feel from those observations.

I agree with you absolutely about the way most people treat their animals. And I admire you for the way in which you dealt with the dog who killed your daughter's chicken. I'm afraid I wasn't nearly as kind (to the humans) when a neighbor's tiny, yip-yip dog chased and killed a pet turkey we had years ago. It was a cruel way to die and the owners just didn't get it. "It was just a turkey!" they exclaimed. And offered to pay us for it as if it was a piece of meat at the store. But this turkey was special. This was in the 70s, my back-to-the-land days. Mama Turk separated herself from the others in the flock, made a nice nest on our front porch and proceeded to lay three eggs which she sat on. But since they weren't fertile nothing would happen. So we substituted three fertile chicken eggs and eventually three chickens hatched. She was a great mother and those chickens followed her around acting totally like turkeys. (Turkeys and chickens act differently). Finally the chickens went to the flock but Mama Turk stayed on the porch. When we moved we took her with us and she became a pet. Until she was killed. I was very angry with the owners of the dog, mostly because they were so uncaring about the horrible, painful death my turkey suffered, not because their dog acted, well, like a dog.

I suppose you could say our cats suffer because we keep them inside. Although they do have a nice screened in porch to hang out on. But there are coyotes and fisher cats in this neck of the woods not to mention birds which the cats do a great job of killing. So keeping them in was a compromise that works for us and hopefully my cats don't suffer too much. They do eat well, however. Better than most inside cats, I'd be willing to wager.

Your parenting doesn't seem ridiculous to me, just the idea of warning your kids not to become too attached because animals have short lifespans. It's impossible not to become attached to an animal we love. We just have to understand the reality of the situation.

Finally my life is full of shades of gray. There's very little black and white and I can assure you it's not simple either. We interact in this blog to share ideas, and to learn, and also to hone our skills at expressing ourselves in words, which can be slippery and often mean one thing to the writer and quite another to those who read them. So we type, and read, and learn -- at least that is the hope. On Can you 'murder' a chicken? posted 3 years, 2 months ago 25 Responses

Love . . .

Animals do suffer depression and anxiety. I've been lucky enough in my lifetime to live with and love animals who have not suffered these emotions, at least not for long periods of time (my cat Porter was depressed for a time after an older cat and his best friend Elliot died), but I've known plenty of others whose dogs, especially, suffer anxiety over various things and also depression such as after the loss of their human or other friend. A co-worker last year adopted a dog who stood by his human for two days after he had committed suicide until someone finally came by and discovered the situation. That dog took months to recover. Then there's what we've been learning about elephant relationships and their grieving process. And chimpanzees. And whales. And dolphins. Just because an animal is not human doesn't mean it doesn't experience emotions that humans also experience. To think otherwise is simply arrogant.

And as for warning children not to become too attached because their pet will most likely die before they do, well that's just ridiculous. It's a good thing to fall in love with an animal, to care for it over its lifetime, and to grieve for it when it dies. It teaches us that we love, that we suffer, and that we can come through the other side of grief with our hearts intact able to love still. The point about a child with a terminal illness is well taken. And we also lose our children unexpectedly, like one of my good friends whose 16 year old daughter was killed in a car accident. Life happens, to humans and to animals. The solution is not to not love but to love every day full with the knowledge that life is uncertain and best not be wasted. On Can you 'murder' a chicken? posted 3 years, 2 months ago 25 Responses

It's discouraging . . .

No mention anywhere about the environmental consequences of drilling for this oil, and the news media were all over themselves to make it sound as though we've (the US) been given a reprieve so now we don't have to worry so much about conserving or increasing gas mileage, and, of course, no mention of climate change which will only be worsened by this discovery. It's as though human beings were created for the sole purpose of drilling, mining, clearcutting, paving, consuming, consuming, consuming. That we don't have a responsibility to the ecology to non-humans to the future or even to our grandkids. It's sick. I was so sad last night to hear of this latest discovery. I pray it's not as big as they think and that it's so expensive to get out that it will have to be used carefully, perhaps simply to ease us a bit less painfully into a post fossil fuel world. I can dream. . . On Vast untapped oil reserve discovered in the Gulf of Mexico posted 3 years, 2 months ago 15 Responses

We need community

I think it's safe to say that pretty much everyone I come in contact with, both at work and otherwise, understands that climate change is real and that massive changes must be made if we expect to have any kind of liveable future. But, with few exceptions, most feel essentially powerless to make any kind of real difference.  Also most people don't have a real picture of the world outside New England/the US/Canada with regard to energy use, lifestyle, wealth/poverty issues, etc. We talk of necessary changes and we're talking about what we can do at home or in our communities mostly as individuals and families. The larger picture, which must be addressed realistically, is way beyond what most people can or want to deal with. And yet they know it can't be ignored.

I do think most people are willing to make some major changes but there is too little support both economically and structurally. For instance, it's expensive to get a more efficient car if you're making under $15/hour. Organic food is way more expensive than conventional food, at least most of it is, which is unfortunate because conventional food is more costly to the environment. It can't be just up to individuals to counter climate change. We need massive efforts, supported by governments and forced upon industries whether they like it or not, in addition to what you and I can do.

Right now, my personal financial situation is maxed out, since most of our energy expenses have just about doubled in the past three years and income hasn't kept up. So we can cut back on some stuff (but we don't really buy all that much "stuff" anyway) but not much else. Most everyone I know is in this same situation. We have no flexibility, no wiggle room. Eventually we're hoping to sell our house and move to a smaller, more efficient one, but that doesn't solve the problem of today, or this winter.

In order to make the kinds of sacrifices we're talking about here, we need to come together in our communities and support one another in real, tangible ways, not just to talk or bitch, but to live together, work together, feed each other, keep each other warm, share what we have, you get the idea. . .   On The most inconvenient truth posted 3 years, 3 months ago 11 Responses

Testing the waters . . .

I've had so many thoughts come and go reading all these posts at once (having spent the last couple of days away from the computer, spending time with my family, canoeing and eating, and playing with the grandkids and all that good stuff). Do I dare put my toe into this discussion at this point? Yeah, I guess so.
    My first comment is that today there is no such thing as free trade. The so-called global free trade agreements have made sure of that. What passes for free trade today, to oversimplify for which I apologize up-front, is what benefits corporations, not communities, not people, not even business unless you're multinational or have connections into that world somehow.
    To my knowledge, which is admittedly limited, there is no nation that has an economic system that "works better". (And one of the reasons may just be the global domination of western market capitalism). What we do have, and some examples have been listed but since they aren't nations their importance has been downplayed, are what some community-based economists call "lifeboats" -- models that can be replicated, expanded upon, and networked or webbed together to, over time, create alternative economic networks. These networks can be statewide, national, even international in scope. Cooperatives, by the way, are much more than barter organizations. Today there are even banks that specifically make loans to worker-owned/women-owned/minority-owned cooperatives around the country. There may be some barter, in the sense that there may be some labor traded for ownership shares or the like but when I hear the word, "cooperative" I don't think of barter organizations.
    If by charities you refer to any nonprofit organization (as opposed to charities that hand out goods and services), then charities do indeed produce goods and services, as well as technology. What about all the organizations working overseas to develop ways of cooking with minimum fuel or desalination projects or developing solar technologies for use in third world applications? I spent almost twenty years working in the nonprofit world and there are many wonderful organizations that do a lot more than hand out goods. There are even nonprofit/for-profit business hybrids.
   Nonprofit organizations, cooperatives, business -- these are all simply legal structures created by people to make things happen. We live in a society that demands our efforts to make things, do stuff, trade with one another, etc. be formalized into a legal construction. During the 1980s and forward, there were many efforts to find ways of creating new legal structures to contain the forms of more human-scale, community-based, ecological ways of relating. Suffice it to say, it is very, very difficult. There are hoops to jump through and it's expensive to hire lawyers to create the correct legal documents, not to mention tax issues.
   Here are a few more examples of structures that can help create a different economic reality: Land trusts (many, many models for many, many purposes), community currencies (both  barter network based or actual physical currency that is printed -- I helped create just such a currency in Vermont about 12 years ago), cooperatives (many, many models, many purposes), loan funds specifically to support small-scale, Earth friendly, community-based enterprises (again, many already exist in every state and many countries).
   We have to start somewhere -- and here we are. In a world where global market-based capitalism (trade that is far from "free") is in the process of transforming virtually every economy in the world over in its image. But I agree that eventually (and let's hope soon for the sake of the planet) capitalism will cause its own downfall because no system predicated on constant growth and higher profits can continue in a world with finite resources. And we've already reached the limit. The system just hasn't caught up with that fact yet -- the feedback loops are too big and unwieldy, and plenty of money is being made eating the seed corn, but when it's gone and there's no seed to plant, well then we'll be screwed.
     We can't go back in time to a supposedly more idyllic time, but what we must do is evolve as a species. Right now it seems that we are stuck. We think creating material wealth is the highest and most important thing humans can do. And instead all we're really doing is consuming the Earth, and for what? Looking to traditional, indigenous peoples for ideas, inspiration, and even some how-tos makes sense to me since, despite what seem like strange or even immoral customs to us today, indigenous peoples were (and some still are) onto something when it comes to living sustainably in their environment. Trouble comes when societies get too big, population exceeds carrying capacity, and/or egos in power crave even more power. Simplistic, but I think fairly accurate. We can learn from these mistakes, too, as well as (hopefully) from our own.On Capitalism posted 3 years, 3 months ago 33 Responses

The thing is

re: McDonough is there are too many people. His vision sounds great as far as it goes, but I have a hard time envisioning such a utopia in, say the slums of Mexico City. I recall a recent issue of Orion on slums and the people who live in them. What does "civilization" have to do with that? Are we only talking about upper class America? How does technology deal with poverty, poverty in this country, and poverty around the world? Because much of that poverty has been caused, directly or indirectly by "civilization", in other words, development. The idea of sustainable development, as pleasant as it may be in its ideal, is a concept of western thinking. The fact that we must necessarily have development (and by development we always seem to mean business/profit/growth). Put sustainable in front of it and that's supposed to make it pretty. Jensen is right to question the very idea of development as we have come to understand it. And, like it or not, this is the kind of development McDonough envisions. It's the same paradigm, just cleaner and greener. It may be something we need to go through, however, to get to the other side, to get  beyond the point of development and onto living, relating, cooperating, with each other and the Earth, too.On Can industrial civilization really become sustainable? Should it? posted 3 years, 3 months ago 40 Responses

A chance for democracy?

While corporations are treated as individuals at the federal level, it appears that communities may be able to check this power. Earlier this year Barnstead, NH passed a law banning corporations from mining and selling town water. The law also stripped corporations of constitutional power and authority. It became the first municipal government in the country to ban corporate water mining and the third, after Porter and Licking Townships in Pennsylvania, to strip corporations of state and federal constitutional powers. (The towns in PA were fighting corporate hog operations.)
    Is this legal? Absolutely. The NH Constitution reads: "All government of right originates from the people, is founded on consent, and instituted for the general good . . . and that government [is] instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the whole community and not for the private interest of or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men." Most state constitutions have similar language. It is not democracy when the state or federal government enables a small "class of men" -- the corporation -- to usurp the power of the people.
    Of course citizens have to know their stuff. They have to work together as a community, put aside petty differences in order to craft an ordinance that can be voted upon and approved. The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) based in Pennsylvania (www.celdf.org) offers resources, free legal assistance, and a Democracy School that "offers a new organizing model that helps citizens confront the usurpation by corporations of the rights of communities, people, and the Earth". Courses are offered at locations around the country -- a couple of times each month, and they are also looking for people to host more sessions. Lessons focus on the history of corporate law and successful peoples' movements both historically and today.
    One of the school's founders, Richard Grossman, wrote in my book "Invested in the Common Good", "Legal doctrines are not inevitable or divine. . . The corporation is an artificial creation, and must not enjoy the protections of the Bill of Rights. . . . Our sovereign right to decide what is produced, to own and to organize our work, and to respect the Earth, is as American as a self-governing peoples' right to vote. In our democracy, we can shape the nation's economic life any way we want."
    The important thing to understand is there's help for communities who want to say NO to corporate control. It is possible for people to come together to create a sustainable, locally-controlled business environment that also respects and sustains the local ecology. We don't have to shrug our shoulders and say, "Well, that's progress. There's nothing we can do."
       A part of me wonders why every community doesn't get together right now and enact similar provisions to Barnstead. People probably don't believe it's possible. I have to wonder what would happen if communities all across the country started such anti-corporate, pro-democracy actions. Could we really stop hog operations, water mining, strip malls, toxic dumps, strip mining, etc.? We've gotten to the point in this country and globally that if we don't do something to stop the pace of development and destruction we'll be royally screwed. And our kids and grandkids won't have a chance, not to mention turtles, butterflies, salmon, polar bears, maple trees, snow in winter, etc. Could it be as "simple" as coming together to create a legal document that just says "NO!"? I wonder.

    "By replacing real governing power with the toothless Regulatory System, corporate schemers have us trudging off to permit application hearings, hat in hand, to beg our elected Zoning Board members and Environmental Agency employees not to let corporations use their pre-engineered regulatory law as a community wrecking ball. . . . Our authority to simply decide what kinds of communities we want to live in has been robbed from us through an ingenious bait-and-switch. Regulatory agencies create the illusion that we have legal remedies in the face of corporate assaults on our communities and families.To safeguard the future for our children and the planet it is time we confront these usurpations. What needs to become clear is that it is no use just fighting a particular corporation, a site battle, a permit. In every campaign, we are fighting hundreds of years of accumulated law and custom that have stolen democracy, rights, and self-determination from us. And it matters what you will do next." - CELDF On Wal-Mart is not a person posted 3 years, 3 months ago 17 Responses

It's time for another emphatic

NO! I'm sorry but I just can't go there. Maybe it's a kneejerk reaction. I've spent too many years fighting nukes of all sorts -- bombs, reactors, food irradiation. And I respect James Lovelock on so many things but even he can't convince me -- and if anyone could it would be him because he's right about so many things, including climate change. But my heart and my spirit say NO.On Nuclear power is complicated, dangerous, and definitely not the answer posted 3 years, 3 months ago 40 Responses

It's typical

I have a great deal of respect for The Nation, and have been a subscriber on and off for the past twenty years. That said, I'm now "off". And the main reason is their lack of attention to environmental issues -- which is my main interest. I've written them about it and gotten no response. And it doesn't appear to be changing. So it doesn't surprise me that much of this article is pretty old hat. The info on funders is not new. It's something I and others working in grassroots groups struggled with fifteen years ago. The large funders don't get it, perhaps they never will. Smaller foundations do, but don't have the ability to fund more than small grants. And the Apollo alliance talks a big line and so far is doing basically nothing -- but I bet they have plenty of money to do it with. That's the way it goes. . .On Hertsgaard on the environmental movement posted 3 years, 4 months ago 5 Responses

A dream

It seems to me that the WTO and that whole western, capitalist global mindset is blocking access to markets for poor people, which was my point, though maybe not said that well. People the world over want what we have. Access to the market, a wide variety of foods imported from everywhere, all that stuff, but it's not sustainable for us and it certainly isn't sustainable for the Earth as a whole. Before we can begin to tell other countries, especially poor countries, what they can and can't do, we need to clean up our own acts here at home. And a big part of that is to stop robbing other countries of their resources. Lead by example, which we aren't doing very well.

I can't argue that life was hard in the past. But life is hard now, too. I feel as though we're living in the eye of the hurricane at this point in time and the future we're creating is going to make the hard past look like the good times. For instance, we still haven't dealt with the devastation in New Orleans. It's like a third world country in many places. Life is hard for rural people in the US, too. You don't have to drive too far off the main roads here in Maine, for example, to see poverty. Of course it's not as bad as some third world countries yet, but with energy prices climbing and lack of access to health care and decent paying jobs things are going to get a lot worse.

I don't want to romanticize local but it only makes sense to become as regionally self-reliant (not self-sufficient, there's a difference) as possible for those things that are the basic necessities of life.

A few years ago I worked on various campaigns to fight rainforest destruction. Many of the organizations I connected with worked directly with indigenous peoples. Certainly there were some tribal people who wanted the development and the stuff it brought, but at that time a majority valued their homeland, their culture and traditions. They wanted to be the ones to decide their future, not Exxon or Shell or BP or UNOCAL or other mining companies. They put their lives on the line protesting clearcutting and mining and they traveled to this country and spoke at conferences, including one my organization organized (Industrial Nations' Impact on Tribal Lands).

Jose Barriero, a Native American educator, activist and editor of Akwe:non Journal (I'm not sure if it's still being published) contributed to my books and wrote about what he called the Fourth World peoples -- people from aborigional or tribal cultures who still have a memory of their culture, language, and religion, and who want the freedom for their cultures to continue to exist. I am not trying to do the "noble savage" thing here, merely to point out that there are many, many ways of perceiving sustainablity and livelihood. There is much to be learned from people who don't want the contraptions associated with our technological, industrial culture.

I'll never forget a conference I was at in the mid 1980s sponsored by the Seventh Generation Fund. I was one of the few (about nine out of over two hundred participants) non-Native people there. I was asked to be a resource person on economic alternatives. I brought handouts and flyers and so did the other people there, Native or not. Usually people who attend informational conferences pick up flyers and booklets and whatever is out there almost mindlessly. You have to wonder how much of it even gets looked at and you can only hope it gets recycled rather than tossed in the trash. But not at this conference. People only took what they actually thought they'd use. There were plenty of handouts left over. It as a whole different perspective on information. Less greedy. More thoughtful. And more critical as well. There were many things about this event that stayed with me, but one of the biggest things was an attitude of greater respect for everything -- people, information, even paper. I met some powerful activists at this conference -- John Mohawk, Winona LaDuke, Mike Myers, people I was able to work with over the years at various times. I have not had a lot of experience traveling in the third world which I know is a liability because I don't really know so much. I try not to romanticize, and may not always succeed, but this is because I feel we'd all be so much better off if we integrated a bit of the indigenous world view into our industrial world view.

One more thing -- I know traditional societies can be oppressive to women or minorities within them. I think it is possible to learn from them anyway without swallowing everything whole. The whole point of evolution, after all, is to evolve and not just physically, but emotionally and spiritually. We can learn from each other and hopefully everyone will grow so that not only will all people be respected, but so will the land, the air, the water, and the non-human species we share the Earth with. I know, I know, it's pie-in-the-sky stuff, but it's a vision, something to aspire to. I also know that the changes of achieving it are, well, not huge. Still. I can dream -- and do what I can to help it along.On A geo-green third party? posted 3 years, 5 months ago 103 Responses

ideas, rant, ideas

Patrick, what you're saying about the devastation caused by global warming and the immediacy of it is absolutely true. My experience of people with this information is that they nod their heads as if they understand, and then they lapse into the thinking that somehow, someway, we'll find a way to subvert it. We're all so used to the heros at the end of the movie saving the day. I think people are absolutely not prepared to even consider the idea that the scenarios you're painting could happen with, say, 10 years, with much devastation, like Katrinas many times over, all along the way. It's already happening with weather extremes. How many "hundred year storms" can we have in two years? The "logic" of just not getting the dire straits we're in sometimes freaks me out.

China may be working towards a harmonious society, which is great, but the pollution in China is something else again.

And absolutely no way will online "organizing" ever take the place of face to face. You're right -- I discuss because I'm frustrated but when I'm busy and doing stuff I don't have time to discuss online. The real work happens in real time, as they say. Certainly some things can be done online and done well, but part of organizing is the comeraderie, getting to know people, not just the words they type. That said, we need to transform our whole idea of organizing in this country. I don't know how, I just know what we're doing, and what I've done in the past, doesn't work. It's like we're always fighting the same battles over and over. And that's how it feels. Creating something positive, while at the same time educating about why and how, may be the way to go.
Take Food Not Bombs, for example, (given in earlier posts). I live in rural Maine and there's not a Food Not Bombs in sight. But there could be, and hopefully not a two hour drive away. We need these things where we live. Here people are so busy often working two jobs, that they just don't feel they have the time to go to meetings and organize. On line could help that somewhat but if you aren't willing or able to go out once a month to accomplish something positive, then nothing will ever get done. That's what I feel I'm up against here. Sorry for the rant. But when I think of what we're facing and look out at the country I live in then, well, sometimes rant is all I can do.

But then, an Earth Day of mass protest might actually work.On A geo-green third party? posted 3 years, 5 months ago 103 Responses

What is favorable to the revolution?

As you have pointed out, the political systems in this country pointed backwards because that's what benefits the elite, corporate and otherwise. And right now, the elite are in control, even to the point of rigging elections. Most people already know this and many are disenfranchised to the point of not voting, especially young adults -- which would be okay if they expressed their point of view in other, concrete ways, but they don't. And they don't because they are defeated before they even try or they are so buckled under to the system, including their jobs and other day-to-day obligations that they don't think creating alternatives is relevant to them. Perhaps there will be more opportunity for the kind of revolution we're talking about here once more of the so-called middle class become low-income and downright poor, which is happening and not so slowly. It's just that it takes time for people to recognize it, at least in a social way. (I dare say people are recognizing it economically.)
LSam, what kind of response are you looking for with regard to this issue? There's no arguing against what you say, not in any major way. You're right. The thing with theory is it inspires some people and not others, even others who intuitively understand and agree with the theory. Theory is only as good as its practice. What I want to know is, what is currently favorable to the revolution here in the U.S. for us to take advantage of? Obviously we have increasing poverty, underfunded and gutted social programs, a health care system that exists only for those who can afford it, crumbling infrastructure, the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer (as my father used to say), and, for me the biggest issue is the environment and climate change, which eventually will create a level playing field one way or another -- but at great cost (and I'm not talking money). These are the negatives. And they freak people out. It's much easier to remain in as much denial as your personal circumstances allow. Within this post and countless others on Grist since I've been paying attention, these negatives have  been variously discussed as opportunities for bringing people together (although in reality it's slow in coming). Are there any real positives that support the revolution? I believe there are but they aren't networked together into a more cohesive vision. Ordinary people don't see a place for themselves in this vision. Even me, who has espoused vision after vision in my own work, detailing those organizations and enterprises that will play roles, find myself at this point in my life unable to take advantage of the benefits of the positive, and in turn to support them substantively. This is because it takes money and I don't have it. The question is, how can we make it possible for people without much means to be part of those strategies that are necessary for economic democracy, justice, and environmental sanity? How can those of us who are just managing to pay today's bills, with little or no savings, help grow and participate in the alternatives? I believe a nonviolent revolution, which I assume is what we're talking about here, will need to include more than leftists and radicals. And it will need more than trust fund babies on one extreme and individuals who have basically given their whole lives to activism and revolutionary change at the other extreme. I say this because I was an activist and single mother with three kids (now grown) and I couldn't afford to volunteer most of my time as many of my colleagues did. I ran an organization, organized conferences and projects, published a newsletter and generally did what people said was "valuable" work. Yet when I needed a paycheck for it I was told that I shouldn't expect to support myself as an activist. So the alternative was to stop being an activist and get myself a "real" job. But I never did that because I couldn't bring myself to do it. Instead I struggled and patched together a livelihood of payment for articles, honorariums, and the occasional "fee" for doing non-profit work. Plus food stamps, Medicaid, and, when my ex didn't send childsupport, welfare. It was stressful but not as stressful, for me anyway, as working at McDonalds would have been. However, that was my decision. Most people I know would not make that decision, and thus we lose valuable people (of all races, I'm white), many of them women. So this is a class issue we have to deal with, not just in acknowledging it, which I believe we do, but in finding ways of addressing it.
On A geo-green third party? posted 3 years, 5 months ago 103 Responses

We don't take AMEX, but . . .

At the natural food store where I work, in Bridgton, Maine, we take EBT cards (Maine's version of food stamps/welfare/health care reimbursement). All our produce is organic and much is local in season. We always carry local eggs and also local meat and poultry. And many local farmstands accept vouchers from the state which entitle seniors to a certain amount of fresh produce every month during the growing season. And some accept EBT cards, as well. Even so, organic produce is more expensive than conventional produce so it takes a certain commitment, whether you use food stamps or cash, to stick strictly with organic. In our store we post a list of  produce that is more likely to be contaminated with pesticides so that if people have to make choices they can do it that way. The regular grocery stores also carry organic produce, but it's usually more expensive than ours and not as high quality. Partly because it seems the produce managers don't know how to treat it. For example, keeping organic bananas in plastic bags (but non-organic ones aren't) which hastens spoilage. On Umbra on farmers' markets and food stamps posted 3 years, 5 months ago 9 Responses

Polluted oceans

This is wonderful news indeed. Unfortunately, the ocean is becoming more and more polluted and eventually this will have an impact on the biodiversity of this beautiful place. And Bush is doing everything he can to continue to endanger the world's oceans.On Hawaii Islands Win Unprecedented Protection posted 3 years, 5 months ago 5 Responses

Both/And

I think we need to be working both on prevention and dealing with the consequences. But rather than some national act, I think what we need to be doing is getting together in our communities to create a plan and strategize how we can make it through the tough times to come. It will vary depending on where we live. And regardless of where we live, we will be impacted by climate change, mostly in negative ways. How could it be otherwise? Species have adapted over hundreds, thousands of years to our present climate and this is going to change -- assuming we continue on as we are and I see no signs to indicate otherwise despite the recent media attention. The result will be devastated ecosystems not a better growing season in colder climates. So it only makes sense to begin planning for the shifts we'll be experiencing.
   At the same time, however, I continue to believe there's plenty we can do to make a difference in how severe it becomes. I could be in deep denial here, but for my own emotional and spiritual sanity I need to believe this. Just that it's possible, not that it's a given. And on the off chance that we can greatly mitigate, despite everything that's already happening, then we must work to prevent, prevent, prevent however we can.
   Whether the federal acts described in the op ed piece are good or not, I don't know. I do know that in places like the Gulf Coast where hurricanes are going to be more severe, obviously something has to give. It's just common sense. But red tape was one of the problems after Katrina. The powers that be actually preventing people from coming in to help. Unbelievable! It seemed like government often got in the way, rather than facilitating solutions. I'd hate to make it worse than it already is.On Not a helpful turn in the global warming conversation posted 3 years, 8 months ago 11 Responses

people and corporations are different

Come on now -- who benefits from new consumer products like disposable toilet bowl cleaners, plastic containers marketed as throw-aways, plastic plug-in airfreshners (full of chemicals), and all the other new plastic widgets or whatzits along with prepackaged "food" products we can pretend to have cooked at home, and so on and so on? Not me. Probably not you. Not anyone really -- it's all just a market ploy to separate consumers from their money. The reason is profit for corporations. Period. Over the past few years, as I've been simplifying, buying more local and more organic, driving less, and etc. the number of stupid, throw-away products has increased expotentially. I'm not saying individuals don't have responsibility here. Certainly we do. But the corporate world is something else again. They create stuff to make money not because anyone needs it or even desires it. So there are two catagories here: the individal and institutions. Some of these institutions are more easily influenced than others. Locally controlled institutions like schools, churches, etc. for example can respond to local pressure. Corporations like Exxon, GE, Monsanto, WalMart, etc. do not respond well to individual pressure. Sometimes they shift because of a national/international boycott or other kind of campaign, but generally they don't change until they are forced to legally. Corporations are made up of people, yes, but with rare exceptions they lose their individuality within the corporate body. The system is real even though it isn't alive, perse. It has a life of its own, it perpetuates itself and this won't change until enough of us decide its time for some kind of revolution.
   Finally, has anyone seen the latest issue of Orion with its cover story on urban slums? It's just devastating; and hard not to fall into despair just reading the articles and looking at the pictures. This is poverty like nothing I've seen in this country. On Poverty and sustainability posted 3 years, 8 months ago 8 Responses

more snacks

Here are some of the snacks available in the natural food store where I work, all of which can be ordered in bulk (5 - 20 pounds depending on what it is) at considerable savings: all sorts of dried fruit: pineapple, mango, papaya, various berries, bananas, apples plus gorp mixtures of nuts, fruit, and chocolate (or carob) bits. Candied ginger is a real favorite. All kinds of nuts: raw, roasted with salt, tamari, or no salt. Corn nuts, soy nuts, sesame sticks of numerous flavors, wasabi peas, health/energy/snack bars like Luna and Odwalla. . . and so much more. You can also get natural versions of m&ms and totally decadent treats like chocolate covered espresso beans (great for those all-nighters).
  I remember that carob Hagen-daz. I especially loved it mixed with their honey flavor. I guess they weren't that popular because they're no longer available.On Umbra on dorm snacks posted 3 years, 8 months ago 5 Responses

Re previous

Re: It's not about "you and me," but about how humans in general are causing harm." I like the way you put that -- Thanks. I, too, have got the "you use wood, you live in a house made of wood" when I was campaigning to stop clearcutting, for example. And the car thing. And . . . there are so many of them.On Kickstarting social change posted 3 years, 8 months ago 30 Responses

What a mistake!

This is a really bad idea. I can understand concern at the industrial ag level because I'd guess that most if not all diseases that could adversely impact other animals and people are more likely to start and spread in these inhumane environments. But for the small scale farmer or for the family with a flock of hens, a few geese, a goat or cow, a couple of pigs, whatever, it makes absolutely no sense at all. I work in a small, natural foods grocery. We sell eggs from local chickens. Some of these producers bring in just a dozen or two a week, and we are happy to have them. We also sell locally raised bison, lamb, beef, pork, and chicken -- all of which comes from less than 30 miles from the store. These are very small scale producers who love the animals and love the lifestyle of living on the land. We should be doing absolutely nothing in this country to discourage these small-scale producers and everything to encourage them because some day, perhaps in the not so distant future, these are the people we will rely upon for our food. If we regulate them out of existance, we will be very, very sorry for the loss. Not to mention the fact that many of these small producers raise less common breeds of chicken or sheep which is important for the diversity of the species. Customers love the pastel colored eggs, for example, that you don't get from white factory chickens. I understand that avian flu is serious but we're not going to solve the problem by hurting small farmers. We should, instead, totally revamp our industrial food system, down size, localize, etc. As far as animals go, I'm not against eating meat, but we do eat way too much of it in this country. If we had to get our meat locally, we'd be paying more and eating less of it. But it would be higher quality, better tasting, and less degrading to the environment. Keep track of the big guys and let the small farmers do what they do best.On USDA ID-tag plan for farm animals has some small-scale farmers unhappy posted 3 years, 8 months ago 10 Responses

Re: Systemic change. . .

The answer to your question, mtneuman, is absolutely! We should be coming together in our neighborhoods and communities to discuss the future based on the latest climate change information and the fact that the national government is doing nothing, is in fact, spending millions of dollars to research climate change, while denying we need to worry about it enough to act -- because it might hurt the pocketbooks of the rich and powerful. I write an editorial column every other week in my local paper (I'm the paper's "green" columnist and get a fair amount of flack from certain letter writers who don't agree with my perspective). Several of my columns over the years have been on climate change and peak oil. I get the sense that people are waiting for something or someone to come along and force them to change. Beyond the little things like recycling, driving less (living in a rural area with no public transportation at all means we all drive more than we should, even just to get to work), buying local food, etc. it's like we know that we're facing a difficult (to put it mildly) future but we seem incapable of dealing with it so we put up some kind of barrier that allows us to live our daily lives as if everything is going to be just fine. I don't know how to get around this. We seem to be waiting for something. But what? We're so used to being independent, individual, isolated, "every person for him or her self" in this country that we don't seem to know how to come together except in dire emergencies -- and then we back off when things start to return to "normal", missing wonderful opportunities to rebuild our communities in good times rather than waiting for the bad times to force the issue. It's frustrating.On An interview with the founder of Worldwatch and Earth Policy Institute posted 3 years, 9 months ago 7 Responses

Re: me neither

Backcut, what universe are you living in? Trees are not the problem, humans raping the forests is the problem. Don't blame lack of water on trees. Trees are good for the land, good for the water table, etc. Trees are dying, yes, and it is because of extreme imbalance, human caused, in the forest ecosystems and the planet as a whole. When you cut too many trees you eventually get drought. Insect infestations are also signs of extreme imbalance. Fire is nature's way of getting rid of scrub, clearing "junk wood" and honing the forest for its next period of growth. Some species actually need fire to germinate.
Forests know how to be forests but too many of us have forgotten what it's like to be human.On It's time for conservationists to collaborate with an agency they've long demonized posted 3 years, 9 months ago 103 Responses

Re: conservation

I have a vision of old growth returning to the northeast. As you said, there's very little of it now. I believe that old growth is essential, spiritually, for people and the Earth, both. I'm not saying that the whole northern forest needs to be left alone so it can become old growth in 500 years. I absolutely understand the need for a working forest and I know there are ways of managing it that allow for some kind of sustainability -- I'm familiar with the Menominee, for example. The question is, what are we trying to sustainably manage? Are we managing for a sustainable production of a certain amount of board feet? Or are we managing for a sustainable ecosystem and cutting trees for timber or whatever, is one part of that? I would imagine that managing a forest for timber would be much different than managing a forest for the forest. I feel there needs to be a balance and that might mean that ultimately we'll need to find alternatives to wood for certain things. And this is simply my own perspective because I love the woods and want to see more healthy forests and, as I said earlier, the return of old growth to the Northern Forest.
One thing we do need to do more of use use plant fibers to make paper, especially hemp, which I know is illegal in this country right now. And so much paper still goes unrecycled. We have a long way to go.
I believe the reason trees don't regenerate well in the rainforest is because the soils are so poor. So much happens on the surface in a tropical rainforest. When trees are cut the surface just dries up and blows away. On Community forests help revitalize New England towns posted 3 years, 9 months ago 9 Responses

Re: not hopeless

Absolutely, Jeff. It may be hard, sometimes it may feel impossible, but "miracles" do happen. We know a lot, but there's a lot more we don't know. After my sister was seriously brain injured in a car accident over 20 years ago (she was 21), the doctors told us if she lived, and he gave her a10% chance to live, she would be a "vegetable". Not a great prognosis. But she lived. And she is definitely not a "vegetable". She was in a coma for 8 weeks, it took about 6 months of being in the hospital before she could go to a rehabilitation hospital, where she spent 3 months re-learning the most basic things. Then when she finally came home to live with Daddy (our mother died of cancer while my sister was in her coma -- a devastating time for all of us), it was another two or three years before she came around to where she is now. She definitely has issues related to the brain injury. But she lives a full life, volunteers at the local nursing home, has friends, does things, etc. The doctors knew a lot but they didn't know everything. People say my sister's survival was a "miracle", and I'm not going to argue. However, I learned a lot about love, and hope, and prayer during that time and I also learned that while miracles do exist, they are born of hard work and never giving up.On Short and blunt posted 3 years, 9 months ago 10 Responses

Not clear

If we tax land, as opposed to people and things (I'm assuming you want to do away with income tax, sales tax, property/building tax, etc.) then won't that encourage developing every square inch of land? To get the most value out of it to pay for the land tax? Several years ago I worked with a group of folks who followed the teachings of Henry George on land taxes and while I understand the reasoning, I'm not sure the result would be what land taxers hope. Maybe I just don't get it.On Down for the count posted 3 years, 9 months ago 2 Responses

I may be a simpleton, but . . .

Maybe I'm being simplistic, but here's what I don't understand. In this country the Bush administration can ask for, and get, dramatic increases in expenditures for the war in Iraq -- far and above preliminary estimates. The money is there, somehow. Taxpayers will foot the bill. Then programs that benefit education, the poor, the uninsured, small business, the elderly, the environment are cut because the economy can't afford the costs. We all know that's crap. The economy can afford whatever those in power decide it can afford. Oil companies post unheard of profits -- do I recall something about a 46% profit recently? -- but we have no money for the environment? Given what we actually do know right now about climate change and it's impact on every ecosystem on the planet, how can anyone possibly quibble about the cost of dealing with it? The fate of the oceans alone should cause policymakers to faint dead in their tracks. The ocean absorbs CO2 -- roughly 118 million metric tons since the Industrial Revolution, with 20 to 25 million more tons being added daily (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) which changes pH, making it more acidic. An article in the Mar/April Mother Jones, "The Fate of the Ocean" contains this chilling statement: "Studies indicate that the shells and skeletons possessed by everything from reef-building corals to mollusks to plankton begin to dissolve within 48 hours of exposure to the acidity expected in the ocean by 2050." That's not that far away. How can we even consider the cost in dollars with a fate like that waiting just around the corner? I realize this is a rhetorical question, that the powers-that-be don't believe or don't care or somehow think that we'll muddle our way through and life will go on. And yet people who think like me are considered unrealistic or airheads or -- depending on what we do or say -- ecoterrorists. It's just unreal.On Never mind climate science -- what about climate economics? posted 3 years, 9 months ago 6 Responses

Re: deluge

Kip, re your comment: "Where I disagree is with this notion of "Earth-centered" somehow being distinct from human centered. . . .  Your own post talks about "earth-centeredness" as a focus on the earth, and then you go on to point to humans and human activity in the aggregate, which are going to be punished by an Earth that takes care of things (Gaia, presumably)."

Language does create problems. If we talk about one thing and not the other then it's assumed that they are two separate, distinct things. When I say "Earth centered" I'm not excluding people because, to me, we are part of the Earth. We're separate as physical and spiritual beings from other living beings, and we have a unique strand of consciousness, but we're part of the whole regardless. And what benefits the whole, benefits humans. As a writer, language is something I've thought long and hard about. Many of the projects I worked with and supported in various ways back when I was in the alternative economics movement were very human-centered. This wasn't necessarily bad -- they did good work and had a postive impact on people, communities, and even the environment. But the Earth was not part of the language. Yes, many of the individuals involved loved the Earth and had an Earth sensibility but when it came to writing mission statements and policy and all that, the Earth was, for the most part, left out. The assumption was that if the project was human-scale, cooperative, and "alternative" that it would be, at the very least, benign for the Earth. That wasn't good enough for me.
   I don't believe the Earth (yes, Gaia) will punish anyone. I believe the Earth is alive and conscious but I have no illusions that this aliveness is personal with regard to human beings. If we're in the wrong place at the wrong time during a hurricane or earthquake or any other natural disaster, regardless of how "good" or "bad" we may be, we'll be hurt. Shit happens and sometimes it gets us. Neither do I believe that the Earth loves me personally, although I do love the Earth and have had many wonderful experiences that confirm to me that we do participate in the life of the Earth and vice versa. It's a matter of being aware and open and not putting preconceived ideas on our experiences.

"I think you end up conflating human beings as a species with the current structures of power that are destoying us and our ecosystems. . . . These kinds of binary constructions (I believe) actually serve the forces of social power who have no interest in our vision of nature."

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the above. What I think you're saying is that we need to somehow be able to separate humans as a species from the human-created "structures of power", and that to fail to do so feeds and supports those who "have no interest in our vision of nature" as you so politely put it. I agree -- I think.
   As a human who loves the Earth and knows way too much about what we're facing and who and what are responsible (I spent several years doing corporate research and had an article selected by Project Censored a few years ago about corporations destroying the rainforest), I absolutely connect the people in power with the actual destruction that goes on. I also understand that it probably wouldn't matter who is in power because the system is self-perpetuating and the names and faces change every once in a while. This is especially true at the corporate level and with the revolving-door policy of government and industry. However, I also understand that the system is human-created and can therefore be changed. There are all kinds of debates of how to go about this. Some say we should create alternatives on the "outside", others say we have to work from within. I think we have to do both and we have to build bridges; and at the same time, time is of the essense. It's a conundrum for sure. Looking at the situation logically, rationally, the search for solutions is frustrating and probably hopeless. Which is why I believe we need to integrate spirit into picture. There's so much more to life than our physical senses can know. It is with the unknown that our hope and future lie.On A positive environmental program that can (almost) fit on an index card posted 3 years, 9 months ago 61 Responses

Keep the Earth Focus

One (of the many) things I've noticed over the past two decades of activism, organizing, and publishing "Earthy" books, newsletters and articles, is that there seems to be two kinds of people (well, maybe three, the third being those concerned only with wealth and power but I haven't worked closely with these folks, just opposed them). There are human-oriented folks and there are Earth-oriented folks. This is not to say it's an either/or thing, but when it comes down to it most of us fall along one perspective or the other. I'm Earth oriented. And while I love my family -- my sons, my grandsons (I'd give my life for them), and my friends -- and while I feel for the suffering of humans, my heart and soul are with the Earth. If I have money to donate or time to give it's going to be for non-humans. After Hurricane Katrina, I gave money to a local vet who made several trips to the Gulf coast to rescue animals instead of the Red Cross or other human-oriented relief efforts.
  While everyone knows, intellectually, that nothing thrives if the Earth doesn't thrive, there's a huge disconnect between that intellectual knowing and feeling it deep in your heart. What we need to do is reach those who can be reached.
   The Earth, the Universe, is a magical place. (And I use that term fully understanding that some will immediately dismiss what I have to say.) We understand so much and at the same time we understand so little. For many years my focus was on "creating an economy for the living Earth". I worked with folks initiating community based projects like community currencies, land trust models, revolving loan funds, etc.  I saw my role as speaking for the Earth because just because a project is great for people and the local community doesn't necessarily mean it is (or will be) good for the Earth. It might be, certainly. But I wanted Earth awareness to be part of the foundation of community-based enterprises so that down the road Earth awareness is integral to the project, not added as an afterthought.
  I haven't worked in this area for about ten years but many of the projects just getting off the ground back then are thriving now. Some have more Earth awareness than others. Even so, despite the growth of revolving loan funds, community based credit unions and other models of  community economics, our situation today is even more dire than it was ten years ago. I would not have thought that was possible back then. But at the same time as community-based efforts were growing, corporate control, so-called "free trade" agreements, reactionary politics, etc. were also growing and gaining in power. It was not enough to create our own little spheres of influence even though they definitely benefited thousands of people in numerous communities around the world.
   For the past ten years I've struggled with the reality we face that is getting more and more frightening, especially the impacts of climate change. How to convince people to change, to see their lives differently, to take risks, to do something, anything to open to the ecological reality that we are rapidly destroying the ability of the Earth to support, not just life as we have come to know it, but any form of human life.
   I'm one of those people who believe that the purpose of life is the evolution of consciousness, human consciousness being just one strand, not better and not worse, than any other strand. I believe that we have the potential to create and inhabit a world of peace and beauty. I believe that a healthy Earth would be a balance of inhabited and wilderness environments and that even now a future that includes humans is possible, and I would even go so far as to say desireable, despite how we've been over the past few hundred years. I say desireable because we are a strand of the consciousness of the Universe, we have evolved on Earth for a reason and I can't believe the reason is to destroy it or ourselves.
   I think that those of us who are Earth oriented need to be clear where we are coming from. It's okay to love the Earth first. We can empathize with human issues, and love human beings. I don't think it makes sense (and it certainly isn't going to win us any converts) to trash humans but, as has already been said here, there are plenty of organizations that already benefit humans. The Earth and nonhumans need all the help they can get. As far as population goes, I sense the Earth will be taking care of that over the coming years with disasters, diseases and the like. I only wish we would stop funding outrageous medical research (like genetically altering animals like goats to make some kind of life-saving medicine for humans, and pouring billions into fertility research when there are plenty of children already born who need a loving family) and put the money into on-the-ground projects that would benefit the Earth and local communities. It's ironic, and sad, that often the people most hurt by corporate activities are those who are the least destructive in the way they live. In other words, they are people we could learn from.
   We also need to integrate spirit into into the discussion. It's the glue that's missing. We are spiritual beings. The Earth is a spiritual being as are all creatures here. At a stop Hydro-Quebec conference I helped organize many years ago in Burlington, Vt, Winona LaDuke, a Native American activist you may have heard of, spoke about the indigenous world view versus the industrial world view. In the indigenous world view, everything has spirit and "standing", as she put it. Everything is alive and purposeful. Whether we live in a rural or urban place we need to reconnect with the Earth and participate with Earth rather than dominate. How do we do this?
   One final note: Pretty much everyone knows the shit is getting ready to hit the fan, especially after the past few days of mainstream media focus on the melting of the Arctic and how that is speeding up climate change. But if my conversations with friends and co-workers is any indication, the impact of such devastating news is disempowerment. While I'm thinking, "Great. Now people will know, as I have known for years, that we MUST change if we are to survive", other folks are thinking, " Oh my God. There's nothing I can do." And so they put up a barrier on the knowledge, and the fear in their heart, get in their car and drive to work, asking, "What else can I do?" Most people I know are making changes in their daily lives to benefit the environment. But as individuals and families we feel that the little we are able to do makes no difference. And it's true. While we must change at the level of the individual, we also need to transform the larger political, economic, and social systems. Which is what this index card manifesto is about, I think. So keep the Earth focus and find a way of integrating spirit. On A positive environmental program that can (almost) fit on an index card posted 3 years, 9 months ago 61 Responses

Bioregionalism

I've been reading this blog for a while now, thought about jumping in, then became overwhelmed by the words needed to express what I'm feeling. And I don't have time now because I'm headed off to work. The basics of what I'd like to say are this: The kind of manifesto being discussed here has been created and discussed for many years now, by Greens and by other activist groups/movements. For many years I was active in the Bioregional movement. Each year we gathered in congress to create a platform of values and actions that we agreed to, by concensus. What was exciting is we were representatives of organization, communities, and groups of people doing what they could to live their values, at the time, mostly in the US and Canada. Many of these folks were "poor" monetarily but definitely rich in spirit. Anyway, if you aren't familiar with this work check out the web for "bioregionalism" and folks such as Peter Berg, David Haenke, Kirkpatrick Sale, and New Society Publishers which has an excellent selection of books, many written by those with Earthy, bioregional perspectives. This is not to say what's happening here isn't valuable. But I'm also saying that getting these ideas into the mainstream is difficult. Language is very important, but so is maintaining the values, qualities, and from the heart sensibilities that we want to communicate.On A positive environmental program that can (almost) fit on an index card posted 3 years, 9 months ago 61 Responses

being poor

If you're poor in this country you're supposed to "look" it. You're not supposed to have a decent car, you're not supposed to buy any so-called luxuries with your food stamps (when people know you're paying with food stamps, they scrutinize what you buy and make judgements about it). You're not supposed to go on a vacation or out to dinner and you're supposed to shop only at discount stores and second-hand stores. If you're poor you must be mismanaging any money you do get because otherwise you wouldn't be poor now would you? If you're poor you're supposed to be ready and willing to do any shit job for the priviledge of being paid regardless of your gifts and talents, regardless how mind-numbing or spiritually depressing it is. If you're poor you don't deserve better. If you're a poor mother, you're supposed to pay someone to take care of your kids so you can work, but if you're not poor you can stay home and still hire help with the kids and housework and that's okay. If you're poor, it's your fault. After all, this is America and anyone can make it, right?
Yup. I've been there. And I'm not far from being there again. So many of the posts in the poverty blogs seem to me to be so supercillious and arrogant. No wonder environmentalists have a bad name in poor communities.
 On A virtual walking tour of Columbia, Miss. posted 3 years, 9 months ago 8 Responses

more on winter

I live in Maine, on the NH border, in the White Mountains. There are several ski areas nearby and if they didn't make snow there would be no skiing this year. Right now we have about 3" on the ground but there's plenty of bare ground, too. This area depends on winter sports for its livelihood in winter, and has for decades. When I moved here in the mid 1950s as a child I remember deep, deep snows, snowbanks so big we carved underground snow forts in them, and I even remember climbing onto the low, flat roof of an outbuilding from the snow -- no ladder required. And I have pictures to prove all this. All of the mountains in this region were here long before the advent of snowmaking and I don't remember a year like this one. I grew up on skis. Mountains actually waited until they had several of inches for a base (to ensure spring skiing) before opening and I can think of only one year that we didn't have skiing by C