Comments birdboy has made

science policy

Physics Today interviewed Obama about his intended science policy here- it's encouraging.

McSame declined to be interviewed.

a liberal in redsville

a shortage of reason

I'm lucky enough to live near the one and only commuter rail line in Nashville, where gas nearly dissappeared for almost two weeks; you'd think ridership would be way up, but no. The two year-old train will most likely be abandoned because of low ridership. People prefer their big SUVs, even at $4/gallon.

Funny thing is, they keep telling us that we're getting our usual supply of gasoline, but that local demand has doubled since the media reported possible price increases from the hurricanes. Apparently, Nashvillians created the shortage (and subsequent price increase) trying to save themselves a few cents.

Way to show community spirit, Nashville.

Where are my neighbors putting all this gasoline?

a liberal in redsville

remember the Valdez

The Supreme Court thinks that punative damages should not exceed the cost of the damages caused. The true cost of the damages will never be known, but can they really think that a tiny percentage of the offender's annual profits is going to 'punish' them, much less stop them from allowing it to happen again?

The CEO's should be on the beaches, sucking up the oil with straws, bathing the wildlife, and helping the natives rebuild their lives for the next twenty years.

a liberal in redsville

Americans Dream Big

To most Americans, what you've called 'efficiency' is equivalent to sacrifice. Asking them to give up their big powerful, roomy cars, trucks, and ATVs, to ride public transportation, live in small, cramped apartments, eat less meat and more local foods, and not buy every shiney new gadget that flashes on their giant T.V. screens would be like asking them to move to communist Russia. Quality of life is a perception, and to most of US, 'perfectly comfortable' means consuming large quantities. Until this changes, we will never gain the full potential of efficiency in this country.

That said, I agree that asking them to change for the environment is a waste of breath. It's going to take high prices and a depressed economy- comin' right up!

a liberal in redsville

not really

If this were real reporting, CNN would mention the fact that drilling offshore will have no effect on gas prices for many years to come, and will never amount to more than a drop in the world bucket. Why do they perpetuate the lie?

Could it be, oh, I dunno.... SPONSORS?

a liberal in redsville

demockary at work

To McCain, and the rest of the GOP, democracy is a bunch of 'good old boys' (GOB's) representing their favorite corporate citizens (average Joe not knowing what's best for himself). Of course this kind of 'democracy' doesn't work well for long term visions (for conservation or equality, for that matter), but is great for maximizing short-term profits and maintaining the status quo. Add to their version of democracy a corporate controlled media, and an uneducated, disinterested public, and you can see the problem. As long as the public is mostly fat and happy, there'll be no revolution, no return to the original version of democracy.

The GOP deserves credit for stalling action on climate change; their blind support for the fossil fuel industry at the expense of the American people and the future of this world should be shouted from every rooftop, not hidden by 'fair and balanced' reporting.

a liberal in redsville

Mine runs on beer

To add to the list of unfortunate facts,
beware the tiny twig-
though it be not so big,
it'll stop you in your tracks.

a liberal in redsville

denial is easy

You tell me that it's in the air
and that it's quite invisible.
You say that I helped put it there,
by making my life livable.

You say that it's our greatest threat,
but I don't see your proof.
You say it isn't too late yet,
but I can't afford a solar roof.

You tell me I must change my ways
and give up what I love;
but I don't fear these warmer days
and I trust in God above.

You worry for my grandchildren,
but I don't know their names;
And I'm sure they'll be much smarter then,
and laugh at all your silly claims.

'Cause weather is what weather was-
it never stays the same.
It matters not what a human does,
and I won't take the blame.

a liberal in redsville

Fever

Only insects and weeds will thrive;
most others will not survive.
With foreign invasions and mass starvations,
rampant infections and rapid extinctions,
the climate in chaos
will eventually slay us;
the fever that kills the host.

a liberal in redsville

the heavenly view

Nature is our whore;
we can always have more.

No need to conserve;
we take what we deserve.

God does the rest
if we pass his test,

and rise above
an Earthly love;

forsake the worth
of lowly Earth.

a liberal in redsville

climate not-quite-haiku

Climate changing fast
from burning fossil fuels;
humanity won't last
unless we make some rules.

a liberal in redsville

mmmm, 2-stroke exhaust...

Ah, here comes another Saturday. About 8:30 in the morning, my good neighbor will start up his leaf blower and chase leaves, one at a time, down the length of his driveway to the street. An hour or two later, when he can find no more leaves, he'll crank up his lawnmower for a few trips around the 1/2 acre lot, just in case a few dandilions have dared to poke their heads up from the cold ground. Then comes the gas powered pressure washer, to spray every square inch of his Titan, his kid's ATV's, and maybe the the garage. After lunch, the kids will take over the neighborhood with their two-stroke toys, up and down the streets, under the power lines, through the easement, around and around.

These folks would kill to keep their polluting toys- the neighborhood (and the Earth) can just suck it up. I honestly believe they like the smell.

a liberal in redsville

protecting the right to pollute

I don't get it- why does the law require states to show "compelling and extraordinary conditions" before they can enact laws which are more strict than the federal laws? If the goal of the EPA is to protect the environment, then any law which is more protective should not only be allowed, but encouraged!

Perhaps they should re-name the Environmental Protection Agency, to avoid confusion- call them the Corporate Interest Protection Agency.

a liberal in redsville

no such thing

As long as they have to destroy the land to get the coal out and put the ash back, it will never be 'clean'.

a liberal in redsville

spectacularly ignorant

What could be more environmentally friendly than nuclear waste, uranium mining, cement kilns, and the risk of nuclear 'accidents'?

And what's more economic(al) than billions of dollars spent on construction, security, insurance, and waste storage?

Not quite sure what an 'efficient source of energy' is, since I thought efficiency was about energy usage, but we all know how efficient it is to push electrons through hundreds of miles of cable from a centralized source, right?

I just can't wait to buy my own nuclear powered automobile, complete with stylish concrete and lead sheilding. I'm sure that will be efficient. Does nuclear waste make good compost?

a liberal in redsville

"the business of growing trees"

Wow. All this time, I thought they were in the business of destroying old growth, diverse forest habitat and replacing it with monoculture pine (beetle) plantations.

Don't living trees continue to sequester carbon every year as they add new growth? Does a peice of wooden furniture?

Doesn't a mature hardwood add a lot more growth and sequester more carbon each spring than a pine sapling?

Doesn't frequent logging and replanting of the same species disturb and deplete the soil, and nearby waterways?

Next they'll be telling us we should clear-cut all forests to reduce the Earth's albido.

a liberal in redsville

"some scientists" blame CO2

Not the vast majority, mind you, but just some of them. Who knows, really? Maybe CO2 has nothing to do with global warming, and the rest of the scientists (who are not plagued by the need to be in the spotlight of the global warming hype) are right, that it's a natural cycle, or God's punishment to gays, or anything else that scientists are just too egg-headed to see? After all, it's really just a matter of popular opinion, which is all that really matters.

Aaaarrrggghh!!!!

a liberal in redsville

so satisfied

What about nuclear waste?
        "perfectly safe"

and mining for uranium?
        "nice and clean"

The risk of catastrophic accident?
        "negligible"

The mamoth investment in centralized facilities?
        "sound thinking"

A target for terrorism?
        "silly nonsense"

Wow. I'm convinced.

a liberal in redsville

Demon Coal

Just below the mountaintop
waits the demon coal
we summon from beneath the rock
to raise the human goal.

Our lust for power delays our fear
of words that rise up from the dark
"Why would your God have put me here,
if not on Earth, to make your mark?"

This black and frozen river
holds a wealth of power;
a human need which we deliver
more valuable than mountain flower.

So we'll pulverize the wooded crest
and blast the ancient stone;
and when the rubble comes to rest
it chokes the river's dying moan.

Release him from his prison,
and light the demon's fire!
Prosperity will be quickly risen;
We'll stoke the world's desire!

No need to fear his angry breath-
it's the price of easy livin'.
Though all of Nature suffers death,
we humans are forgiven.

For we control the demon coal.
We all exhale his blackened soul.

Let's burn him in our public hearth,
let him rise up from the Earth!

The dark savior of the human race,
will drive us to a better place!

a liberal in redsville

oh,

crap.

a liberal in redsville

thank you, BioD

for stomping all over that crap.

It's not ethanol that we hate,

it's taking corn from off our plate

to drive around the map.

a liberal in redsville

Awesome, but

Do they have any power or funding to enforce the ban?

After all, we have laws (i.e., immigration, pollution) that merely give the appearance that we are in control.

a liberal in redsville

dark temptation

Just beneath the mountaintop,
waits the darkened soul
we summon from beneath the rock,
to feed our boundless goal.

His spirit whispers in the dark
of mammoth power so very near:
'On Earth to make the human mark
is why God put me here.

Just release me from my prison
and light my Hellish fire.
Prosperity be quickly risen;
We'll stoke the world's desire.'

This black and frozen river
holds a wealth of power;
to consumers we deliver-
no sacrifice can be too sour!

We'll pulverize the wooded crest
and blast the ancient stone,
and where the rubble comes to rest
it chokes the river's dying moan.

We'll burn you in a fire of Hell
your energy to harness;
the atmosphere will do quite well-
emissions, they are harmless.

For we control the demon coal.
His virtues often we extoll:
Deny the fear of greenhouse gases!
Supply the dream to consumer masses!

Your puny wind and solar power
is no match for mighty coal.
For just pennies on the kilowatt hour
your leaders we control.

His blackened soul now fills the air,
His poison taints the fishes,
We've released him everywhere
and answer to His wishes.

a liberal in redsville

Enemy Ours

Coal is the enemy of the human race.
With blackened lung and darkened face
It chokes the land with toxic ash,
while filling the coffers of some with cash.
It poisons the fish in far away waters,
and frightens away Appalachian daughters.
It belches carbon into the air,
tips the balance towards chaos, despair
just how much can the climate bear?

Coal is the enemy of the human race;
left underground is the safest place.
With a high profit margin for cheap energy,
it tempts consumer-based society.

But the lobbyists disguised the coal
with taxpayer dollars that Congress stole.
So step on the gas, and keep up the pace,
chained to the enemy of the human race.

a liberal in redsville

here's one now

Not the Rain

Not the wind in the willows
but the jays make the yellow
                leaves fall.

Not the rain on the petals
but the sparrows bid the gentle
                stems crawl.

Not the current in the creek
but the crickets make the meek
                soft call.

Not the clouds in the sky
but the dust in our eye
darkens the plight
                of us all.

a liberal in redsville

survival in climate chaos

SML, I hope you have not seen the kind of stress that I'm seeing here in the mid-South; I'm begining to wonder which species will survive, and which will disappear.

The birds have less and less to eat, as they try to feed their young.
The ground is hard as pottery, so few bugs are found.
Hickory nuts are falling off, unripened, on the ground.
Nothing really bloomed this year, and nothing will bear fruit.
The willows shed their leaves (again),
maples and poplars will likely follow suit.

Alas, the weeds and pests will be just fine.
Perhaps I'll learn to love them, the dry and dusty air;
it is a part of Nature, and memory fades like weather fair.

a liberal in redsville

iron stomach

How can a good man/woman stomach the rotten meat that is politics? Money rules our system of government, and anyone who speaks contrary to the ideals of unlimited growth and profit motive will be ruthlessly attacked and beaten into the ground. If the system is to change, it will have to happen slowly, and in the face of clear and present danger. This is why there is so much denial of climate change- it is a big enough threat to force change. Now if only we can find a good candidate with an iron gut- Al's reluctance tells me he's too good for the job.

a liberal in redsville

Our Evil Plan

Should be read grinchily, and please don't miss the irony.

Our evil plan
is to become
famous Science Idols
(nearly Gods to some).
They'll tremble at our Holy words
and bow to our computer model-
the forecast is revenge for nerds.

With complex weather simulations
and communist Hollywood affiliations,
we'll teach them all to worship Gaia
by quoting from our sacred data.

We'll tax them till they're weakest
let them shiver in the dark;
give back their land to wild beastes,
plant flowers in the park.

We'll take away their market shares
and limit their emissions;
just to save the polar bears
from our doomsday visions.

We'll strangle the economy
with sensless regulation;
deny them their progeny
with compulsory castration.

We'll take away their cars and trucks
and make them ride the bus;
then they'll see how much it sucks,
being puny wimps like us.

Across the land they'll sacrifice
all comfort and prosperity;
the footprint of both men and mice
will be too small to see.

So raise your glass of organic beer-
'to global doom and destruction'
may it be ever near!

a liberal in redsville

high crimes or

I've said it before, I'll say it again;

Clinton lied and girls cried;
Bush lied and thousands died.

If deliberately misleading the American people into a war where thousands of our soldiers died and tens (hundreds?) of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians died, where America lost face in front of the world and made millions of new enemies, where torture, endless detainment, illegal spying, and environmetal destruction were A-OK'd is not a high crime, exactly what is?

a liberal in redsville

evolution never stops

In total agreement with JMG,

... our ability as individuals to rationalize anything we wish to do that benefits us or our kin as good/justified/worthy while we ignore or minimize costs that we impose on others outside our kin group (living now or later).  That, I suggest, is a lot closer to a root cause for global heating.

This may be the root cause for all 'unintended' evil done by man; we see the benefit to those near us but not the harm done to those far away (especially if they are separated from us by time yet to pass).

Atreyger claims, as many have:

This is the basis for human success as a species, at least during the period of time when we were Homo sapiens var. sapiens. This is the healthiest attitude that an individual can have without being a martyr, and delving into the religious bullshit that goes along with that. We are mammals, whose sole reason for existence, if boiled down to one reason, is to procreate and insure the survival of our progeny.

Really, have we not evolved beyond the 'kill or be killed' rule of the jungle? Can we not sympathize with those outside our immediate sphere of interaction, without becoming 'religious martyrs'? I'll not argue that this animal instinct has enabled us to survive difficult times, but those times are long gone from our lives. To continue to survive, in the modern world, we've got to change this attitude to one of understanding and compassion that goes beyond those we can touch and see; in fact, it must go beyond concern for our own species, if the ecosystem which supports life on Earth is to survive (in any fashion we would recognize) our conversion of resources into human flesh and toxic waste.

I find it hard to believe that by flying across the world to trek across a glacier, I would become a more potent force for change in the world. Most of the 'takers' are more likely pleasing themselves, while dumping carbon into the atmosphere. I also seriously doubt that mankind will benefit from their superior genetic contribution. If we are to survive the result of our animal instincts, the next step in human evolution will be societal, not genetic.

a liberal in redsville

when factory farmed pigs fly

Are you kiddin'? We folk is eatin' extra beans so's our farts will make a whopper of a methane cloud. We like it hot- we buy bigger and bigger SUV's and trucks every year, we use two-stroke engines to cut down them pesky trees and blow the leaves around from place to place in the yard, then burn 'em just to add to the CO2 and smoke in the good Southern air. Ya'll pansies up there can have yer pinwheels and sun suckers, us real men will burn coal fer cheap power, mow down them forests fer firewood, and pave every last corner of Dixieland, and if ya'll don't like it, we'll introduce you to our gas-powered-Yankee-chipper.

a liberal in redsville

no impact lifestyle

Anti-consumerism is anti-American.

Yet everything this family set out to (not) do would be easy, if only our society was built for sustainability, if materialism and waste was not so deeply imbedded. What have they given up, really, except the guilt that rightfully goes with our accepted (no, demanded!) lifestyle. The only struggle will be facing the rejection and ridicule that true (red white and) blue conformists will shower on these good people.

I bet they'll sleep at night anyway.

a liberal in redsville

population crisis

Just heard about a movie by Alfonso Cuaron called Children of Men in which women are no longer able to conceive (in the year 2026). It starts with the accidental death of the youngest human being (at age 18). Imagine knowing you are among the last human beings to exist- facing extinction.

Humans are not much worried about going extinct; that's not what drives our need to reproduce. More likely we are thinking about ourselves- about extending our own personal existence by having children. Children are reflections of ourselves- our precious rebirth looking back at us.

In fear of death we reproduce.
In love with life, we consume.
A dance we play with doom.
As time and space runs out.

a liberal in redsville

organic trains

operated by giant dragonflies genetically mutated to grow at regular intervals along cocoon-like tubes, their rapid wingbeats the only sound as they pull filtered air through the tubes. Inside, thin-membraned bubbles carry people at a high rate of speed. Above, not below ground, they could allow wildlife to easily pass beneath their tree-like support structures. Instead of 200' wide interstate highways, we grow these things in the median, and plant trees where the pavement was. When riders want to switch tubes or get off, an electrical signal causes the tube to contract and redirect the bubble to an eyelid that opens to accept the diverted bubble. Overgrown beetles that digest the city's organic waste would create and repair the tubes as needed.

They could permeate the cities, allowing the conversion of city streets into green corridors, rich with life, quiet and safe.

a liberal in redsville

who are you talking about?

I think the idea that environmentalists are into 'self-denial' lives only in the mind of those who refuse to give up their rampant consumerism, who believe that if they cannot live beyond their means (and that of the Earth) then they are being unfairly deprived. Anyone who suggests that they behave differently is some kind of self-righteous preacher, probably a hypocrite, since in their minds, no one could really want to live any other way than the 'American Way' (ie, gluttony). Stephanie talks about:

...the individualistic, isolationist, and puritanical tendencies of the eco-culture of denial.

Individualistic? I thought that was the American way, not the enviro-creep way... how does respecting the Earth make you an individual? Maybe just being different from the 'norm'?

Isolationist? Don't get that either, unless you think all enviros are hermits who hate the human race (another misbelief common among those who hate the idea of preserving the Earth at the expense of luxury).

Puritanical? Man, I know lot's of folks who are green to the skin and in no way Puritanical- I mean, sure our culture had its early roots in Puritanism, but except for our obsession with sex and anything else 'forbidden', only the far-right can claim that.

I really don't know who you've been talking to- these are all misconceptions about enviro's used to discredit our cause in the eyes of the typical consumer.

a liberal in redsville

government editors?

Why, can anyone tell me, did this panel of expert scientists agree to allow goverment representatives (politicians and dictators) to edit their findings? Even CNN points out that the scientists agreed on much stronger statements than what these non-scientists with conflicting interests would allow. The report was weakened, almost didn't get approved, because certain counties wouldn't agree to what the experts wanted to say. Does this somehow make it more credible? Or just less effective?

a liberal in redsville

'because the Earth needs a good lawyer'

This lawsuit was filed, fought, and won by EarthJustice, one of several major victories under their belt in recent months. A couple years ago, I dumped all the other enviromental groups I belonged to and signed up for a monthly contribution to EarthJustice. These guys use the money fighting in court the implementation of all those insane, shortsighted policies and 'rules' the Bush administration has imposed on us. They may be our last recourse, since corruption and money has overrun our political system. They deserve credit for this victory.

a liberal in redsville

this is getting old

Am I the only one who is getting really tired of reading comments from people who are only here to disrupt and discourage truly interested people from reading and participating in the discussion?

Let me point out the obvious to you folks; you will never convince anyone who reads this blog out of genuine interest in the health of Earth's environment that global warming is a hoax, or that Inhofe has a shred of honor or decency.

By expressing such views here, to this audience, you can only accomplish one thing- discouraging people from participating. There can be no other motivation for choosing positions so obviously contrary to overwhelming evidence, and opposite to the purpose of this blog. You are like a cat who jumps into a pack of dogs and starts meowing.

I for one refuse to stop reading because of your verbal flatulence; I vow to ignore you.

Dave- if you put the writer's ID at the top of the comment, we could skip over the disruptions with ease.

a liberal in redsville

policy kills

Coal is just the excuse for bad policy. It is the World Bank and U.S. economic policy that does the killing. This is another breeding ground for anti-American terrorists- supported by low prices for consumers and big profits for investors- real costs be damned!

a liberal in redsville

it goes waaaay back

Let's go a little deeper into the link between feminine 'issues' and the environment, if you dare.

Many scholars of ancient history agree that before the forceful conversion of most of the world to Christianity, people worshiped at least one form of a Goddess. This was natural, since only women could birth a child; they must be closer to the Divine Ones. This went quite nicely with the ancient view of Nature; often, the Goddess expressed Her will in the workings of Nature. In worshiping the Goddess, they were worshiping the Earth, life in all it's manifestations. Man lived with love and respect for the Earth's creatures, since they were the embodiment of the Goddess, and humans valued the feminine qualities of love, nurturing, personal sacrifice, and peaceful harmony.

But Christian political and church leaders went to great lengths, often by violent means, to overcome the people's reverence for the Divine Female. The societal position of women was downgraded- they were accused of aligning with the 'Devil', and were blamed for tempting Man with the 'forbidden'. Their angry, violent God would punish any who worshiped another way with eternal suffering. The masculine God was harsh, demanding, and dominating. The Church preached that to worship His creation was sinful; worship should be only to Him. Creation was to be used or abused as needed by Humanity, dominated and subdued to Man's purpose- no respect should be paid to the material things placed here by God- respect only He who Created them.

When the expulsion of all things feminine from the world didn't take hold, they began accusing women of witchcraft, of having secret, and therefore evil, knowledge (like herbal healing), and millions of women were burned at the stake. This kind of suppression and domination of the feminine aspect of life is at the heart of today's cavalier attitude toward Nature- Christians are taught to respect the Creator, to dominate creation. This is why people scoff at the notion that animals have rights, that a healthy forest might be more important than human jobs and new homes, and that we puny humans might be able to ruin God's creation with our emissions.

We desperately need to take a more feminine view of Nature; let Her be sacred, let Her thrive, and balance what we take with what we give- that is, nurture nature, don't dominate.

a liberal in redsville

R..F.K. B.S.

Absolutely, the 'old Guard' Republicans had some real Nature Lovers. That is, while they were being pushed by a really pissed-off population, who were choking on the fumes of a free market with no environmental restrictions. While some of them surely cared a great deal about preserving Nature for their grandchildren, the market forces had not yet established their stranglehold on our democratic system. As it is now, putting Ghandi himself in charge would not produce the needed results without a revolution.

As for RFK's speech, PLEASE, don't make me laugh! I thought this man knew the difference between democracy and capitalism. Sure, a free market is efficient at converting Nature into consumables, but look what it has done to our democratic 'representation'. Only money speaks above the chorus of deception and manipulation.

Pollution is NOT waste. Pollution is a shortcut, and shortcuts are always favored when investors are breathing down your back for quarterly earnings reports. Responsibility is expensive, and impedes efficiency if the goal is rapid mass production.

And please, someone explain to me how a free market teaches us to 'value' natural resources? If resources are cheap, then costs of production are low and profit is high. Does the free market encourage a fair price for labor, for wood, for anything?

Excuse me, but I'm pretty sure that lots of CEO's got rich without making their neighbors rich- in fact, sometimes by making them sick. Without someone to FORCE a fair wage, responsible treatment of Nature and waste products, there will be only pollution and abuse, since that always turns the highest short-term profit. Why should my company worry about your grandchildren, when I can get rich today?

Until we see a valuation of Nature above and beyond what it can bring on the free market, we will be in the same boat, still sinking. If Nature's value is determined by the going price, we will consume ourselves and all life on Earth.

a liberal in redsville

problems with the 'coalition'

Wish I could add some positive suggestions to this thread, but reading through ALL those posts, I never saw the (to me) obvious mentioned- the reasons why there will not soon be any large coalition between Conservative Republicans (or Libertarians) and Greens (which are NOT left or right by nature).

The real problem is that the proposed solutions to the 'market distortions' causing our environmental ills are untenable to the majority of folks on that side of the isle. If they are to pay the 'true cost' of pollution and habitat loss, then their profit margins take a dive. Just who will tell them what pollution really costs, and who will make them pay that real price? Could it be, oh, I dunno ... THE GOVERNMENT? And what will come of their belief in their right to do whatever they want on (or to) their own private property?

The sad truth is that small government and sacred property rights are incompatible with the cure for our planet's malady. Saying that a completely free market would not suffer this malady is like saying if everyone carried a gun, there'd be no killing.

Environmentalism is not intrinsicly a left/right, red/blue thing. It's more of a me/we thing. Lately, the right is all about ME.

a liberal in redsville

value is not money

What is the value of companionship? of beauty? of peace?

Many things with great value have no dollar value; to assign one is folly, a fantasy of economics. Humanity has de-evolved away from its roots, and no longer believes that Nature is part of Man, no longer understands that we are nothing without Nature. We live in our boxes and self-created images of the world; we tell ourselves that we don't need anything else, yet how quickly we would wither and die without fresh air, clean water, and good food.

The Earth nourishes us, teaches us, and lifts our spirits. Go ahead, pretend you don't need Her, that She is not your Mother. See how long you live, if you can call it Life.

The problem with economics is that it needs growth; those new developments are not really needed. The new jobs and tax bases are exactly cancelled by the increased need for more jobs and services. In the interim, a few folks get rich, Man's footprint gets bigger, and Nature is weakened. Until our leaders see this, we will continue to destroy the things we need more than money and growth.

a liberal in redsville

designed to fail

It is hard to believe those DOE figures- public transport should be far more efficient than private. Each car carries the weight of it's own engine and breaks it's own wind- a bus or train has one engine, one wind-breaking surface. It depends totally on ridership, which varies from place to place and time to time.

The biggest problem IMO is the lack of interest in taking public transportation. Anyone seen a survey of the number of people willing to switch? In the South, people commute in huge SUVs and trucks (diesel 6-wheelers are very popular), all alone, because their personal space, convenience, and freedom is far more important than perceived environmental impact.

For example; my city just started a commuter rail, using existing tracks to minimize costs. Funding was so low, a local bank saved the project at the last moment with a big loan. They decided to charge $10/day for the commute (justified by assuming we all get 15 mpg and pay for all day parking); and it only runs during the morning and evening rush hours. There is no transit to the train station, so you must own a car, buy insurance and gas, drive to the station, park, wait for the train, ride, transfer to a bus downtown, and finally, (about 90 minutes total) arrive at work. The commute by car takes about 35 minutes, and uses <1 gallon of gas (at 30 mpg- $2.20 today). Worse, if your work schedule doesn't match the train schedule, you're out of luck. This project was designed to fail- it's expensive, slow, and inconvenient. A huge waste of money that will justify people's resistance to spending any more money on public transport.

a liberal in redsville

Simpsons Rule

I watch two things regularly; the weather channel, and the Simpsons. For many years, I was disgusted by the Weather Channel's total silence on Global Warming. I learned later they were owned by staunch conservatives. Recently, they've started a regular show that covers the issue. Even though there's always a little room left for 'doubt', they deserve credit for finally coming around.

The Simpsons, amazingly a FOX network show, hits a true note on current politics (ugly Americans seeking world domination) or environmental issues, nearly every episode. Yes, they absolve Americans for ignorance, greed, and violence, as if it were just cute and normal, but it helps me to laugh about things that would otherwise give me nightmares, and my (nearly adult) kids seem to 'get it'. I conclude that the network exec's just don't watch it (see no liberal, hear no liberal, do no liberal)- it brings in money, which trumps their values.

a liberal in redsville

past successes?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it easier to install filtration systems to remove pollutants like sulfur (technology already existed) from dirty emissions than it will be to reduce emissions (i.e., CO2) altogether? Those previous cap and trade successes were just too easy to compare with GHG's.

With the currently weakened (pathetic) EPA we have now (thanks, GWB and Republican leadership), can we really believe that setting a cap will work? EPA is in court trying to fight the idea of monitoring GHG as we blog! A tax could be on the fossile fuel itself- purchases are easily monitored, emissions- not so much.

a liberal in redsville

Amen, brother

A look into the ownership of that network and their political affiliations is revealing. And they want to allow further conglomeration of media- all forms- TV, radio, internet.

The really scary part is that this is a prime time show, popular with a majority of the American audience. Excuse me, but doesn't the religion so popular with the right wing say to 'turn the other cheek', and 'love your enemy''? How many times have I heard people say "the only thing 'those people' understand is violence", as if that justified our use of violence (at least against 'those people'). I'm afraid this goes way, way back- GWB and company seem to be trying to revive the Holy War. Maybe it's not about the oil, after all. In a race between global warming and a global religious war, global warming is the tortoise.

a liberal in redsville

nationalism, puritanism, exclusionism

Yes, Caniscandida, it is true. For what good is it to be 'the chosen ones' if you can't disparage the rest? I take some consolation from the belief that it may be a 'natural' urge to be that way.

There's a mocking bird in my neighborhood that dominates my suet feeders. She visciously attacks any bird who trys to eat from any of the spots I put suet. Except birds of similar color- a warbler, still gray with winter plummage, the female juncos, they are allowed. I think she is jealous of those with color.

It's probably instinctive to distrust those who look different, sound different, or describe God differently; some of us have not yet evovled away from our destructive instincts.

By the way, thanks for the welcome back! I greatly missed your insightful waxing on the Nature of things. Please don't stop coloring the thread with that ancestor of science, philosophy. I've was distracted by birdsong (spiritual callings) I could not ignore. I needed to strengthen my connection to the elements- I've integrated a new (yet very old and very green) religion into my life. Unfortunately, it's name conjures up images that were fabricated long ago and are blindly reinforced today. I now understand why we have turned away from our Earth Mother, why we try to dominate Her and women in general (hint- Nature=physical pleasure=Woman=Sin). But I'm still trying to learn how to deal with the negativity that comes into my life every day- bulldozers, chainsaws, dirtbikes, Hummers, and an utter disregard for Nature. Worst of all is the knowledge that I am trapped in the system, part of the mechanism that devours the Earth. As you can see, I'm much better now. I jest.

a liberal in redsville

a force for change?

Barack will be called out by those who helped him into congress if he doesn't stand up for the principles he knows are right. He is no doubt under attack by all the powerful forces who rule the day in our $corrupt government$. It must be turning his stomache. I trust this guy to (try to) do the right thing. But this country is not ready- not for a woman and not for a minority. There is still the sickening smell of prejudice and hatred running through every corner of this country. It surfaces even now in the immigration debate. When I was young, I thought diversity had won the day; I was wrong.

Maybe with a minority as vice president, a majority of people would be forced into acceptance or at least silence. Edwards and Obama- if they stand up to big oil and world domination with strength and confidence, could bring about a return to the 'city on the hill'. Terrorist will have no support if we are again seen as a positive force in the world.

a liberal in redsville

not buying it

Carbon offsets are funding these real solutions.

Only when carbon emissions are made elsewhere. Sorry, but claiming the offset will occur at the same time as the emission sounds like an accounting trick to me. It implies precise control over the 'non-emission' which is scary if you could do it.

Another thing, which was stated by birdboy, is that carbon emissions are 'bad' or a 'crime'. They are not, that's not even an issue. It is absolutely impossible to not emit carbon, i.e. flatulence or exhalations or smoke from a fire.

If you are aware of global warming then it is a crime against the environment to emit more carbon than you must. You could skip the trip to the superbowl and stay home, but if you choose to go and pay for offsets, the crime is not erased, only the guilt. We're all guilty- but not all of us can afford the 'cure'.

...unlike the preachy types who go around telling people not to drive or fly. Obviously those people are right, but they will never achieve that goal, since the majority of the population will not pay those costs."

This is exactly the kind of defeatism used to justify resistance to change. No public transportation- people won't use it. No real cost to developers- politicians won't allow it. No change will happen- may as well buy an offset and forget it.

I'd love to see a breakdown of purchased offsets- how many 'offset' necessary emissions, how many 'offset' voluntary emissions? How many people 'offset' their daily commute for the year? How many 'offset' their family vacation to Europe? If you can afford to pay a little more and erase the guilt, why wouldn't you go ahead and emit unecessary carbon?

If a guy cleans out his savings to fly to his mother's funeral, can he buy offsets to relieve his guilt?

I understand that they represent (to the purchaser) an attempt to do a good thing- but they are still a symbol of our reluctance to accept the drastic changes that will be required to 'stop the train.'

a liberal in redsville

daily dose required

That's why some of us have to live in the country. That's where you feel the wonderment with every fiber of your tentative existance. Can they feel it in Manhatten? How can they, when all they see is man-ufactured walls, windows, and pavement? None of that is real to me- it's all artifact, created by man to keep out the world of wonder- to banish Nature. To see the trees wither in the shadows of vertical walls, dying of thirst while their roots desperately seek nurishment under the tar, this can only lead to discontent and destructive behavior. That world is an illusion, one where humans interact with images on CRTs and LCDs. When nothing is real, nothing really matters.

Sure, my suburban life is inefficient compared to theirs. But my 'yard' is critical habitat to lots of very realistic critters- including me.

a liberal in redsville

Chavez is cool

From CNN, Hugo Chavez says:

" the energy crisis will deepen. He described capitalism as "extreme individualism," which is using up the world's non-renewable energy reserves at an alarming pace.

He said the twin towers of the World Trade Center consumed more energy than do some entire countries in Africa.

In addition, the fact that 90 percent of vehicles carry no more than one person is "a stupid thing," he said.

"Our planet will not put up with this," he said. "We're all in peril."

He also said Bush is guilty of genocide. Dude is OK with me.

a liberal in redsville

a clean house is a green house

But wouldn't a 10% showing of Green Party support scare the brown right out of the Democrats? Watch how quickly they start taking on green proposals when that Party takes a significant share of the votes from them.

I've been waiting for Dems to show a spine- haven't seen it yet, and they're running out of time, if they want to keep this green.

a liberal in redsville

Bayer makes what now?

I sat in disgust last night while Bayer played their new commercial for a pesticide for your lawn. They showed a perfect lawn instantly transformed into a brown weed patch, and then revealed the evil underground culprits- bugs. The same bugs that I watch the mother and father bluebirds and robins and mockingbirds pick from my beautiful green (pesticide free) lawn and feed their nestlings every day. Perhaps this is why I see so many birds with deformities and why the frogs are disappearing. It is so that folks can have perfect grass (perfect grass not guaranteed), free of ugly bugs, noisy birds, and anything else that isn't welcome on the living room carpet.

Do people really think this stuff is safe, just because they are allowed to sell it? Or do they just not care?On Umbra on herbicides and lawns posted 3 years, 6 months ago 6 Responses

public relations and Nature

You mean like Bush's response to drooping poll numbers and criticism from high places- to change his public relations staff?

I totally agree about the different views of our relationship with Nature- being a part of the whole, existing in harmony VS being at war with 'bad animals' and 'bad weather'. I think most hunters understand the balance required in Nature- predators and prey (not so sure about 'sportsmen'). The 'war' perspective is much more pervasive- I suspect that a majority of our population sees humanity fighting against Nature instead of working with Her.

I blame the contracting out of all responsibility to corporations and industry. We don't grow our own food, so we're not responsible for how it's done. We don't make our own clothes or generate our own energy, so it's someone else's job to do it right. But if we dare to tell them how to do it, they threaten us with higher prices, reduced supply, and fewer jobs. So now it is the consumer's fault that animals and the Earth suffer. Most Americans have NO relationship with Nature- only with their hired hands. When responsibility is diffused, the worst things happen, and nothing changes.

Only solution I see is to get small and localize. When communities provide most of what they need for themselves, when the impact of how we treat the Earth is felt locally, personally, then people will have working, positive relationships with Nature.

a liberal in redsville

sweet, sweet dreams

Ahh, thank you, kind sir, you have no idea how good that sounds. But closer to truth is that I am a dreamer. And I will continue to dream. I dream that people could get their information from the internet, radio, and TV. Sure, some folks would listen to conservatives or industry talking heads, but unlike mainstream media (bloob-tube, that is), a web-site is not expensive to put up, and scientists can offer their brand of bland facts and "liberal philosophy" for those who care to listen. Only fools get all their information from one source. I think most folks are not as dumb as they may seem- OK, gullible and easily manipulated, but I still think that if you took away the lying politicians who make your vote irrelavant in the current system, more people would vote, and discuss the issues, and find the truth, whether they want to hear it or not, regardless of the lies that some will tell. When the source of the information is disclosed, most people can make the connection. Look at what happens when local propositions are put to citizen votes- turn-out is often huge, and people talk about it and even change their minds when learning more information. Every new law and change to regulations could be the same way- popular media would have to get in line and answer to all available information instead of offering the same 'party line' and 'talking points'.

Wow, this is weird, playing the optimist. Am I believable?On EPA plan would give political officials more say over air-quality standards posted 3 years, 7 months ago 12 Responses

getting it

Wow. Even more amazing than Edison's ability to see into the future is that even today, when we have learned how to harness the energy of the sun, the wind, and the Earth's core, we still don't get it. Edison understood that the consumption of Nature' resources by fire is wasteful and harmful to the Earth, while energy flows all around us, just waiting to be captured and used, without the need to transform natural things into toxic and harmful waste products. Here we are today, able to capture energy cleanly and efficiently, but still preferring to consume by fire, even in the face of global consequences. Energy exec's blame politics and regulations- consumers blame high prices and inconvenience. So the Earth burns, toxics pile up, the rich get richer, and those that do 'get it' are ridiculed by all. Even Edison was considered a crank in his day. Science and philosophy are not so far apart- maybe that's why you don't hear much of it on prime-time TV or in church.

a liberal in redsville

not so easy...

The rich and comfy will resist change with all their might- unless you can promise them something better- which is not easy if it is to be Earth-friendly too. These people will not accept change unless convinced that it is absolutely necessary to save something they care about deeply (for example, their freedom or their prosperity, or their children's future). Realisticly, our vision should involve fewer humans taking less from their environment- even working FOR their environment instead of taking FROM it. Is that vision ever going to fly with fat and happy consumers?

I would say that people have to absorb the scale of the problem before they will be motivated to change. Whether they are currently in denial or are just shielded from the evidence of the problems, it is simply not important to them. People have to know what is wrong with today's world before they can visualize a world without those problems. They must know just how badly change is needed to be motivated enough to care. These days, too many people don't really care if Nature is forever changed, subdued, and sterilized. Diversity is not a part of their lives- so what if 80% of all species disappear from the Earth- they probably only knowingly interact with a few dozen species in their entire lives- many of those interactions being unpleasant. So what if habitat is shrunk and poisoned to the point where no wild areas can support diverse, healthy ecosystems- why should these people change their lives if they can't see how it affects them personally?

Most environmentalists, on the other hand, have a very clear vision of what's wrong- but a foggy view of what would be right. One reason for the fog is overpopulation- there are just too many of us to allow ANY realistic vision of a harmonious relationship with Nature. No matter how good your powers of visualization, seeing a favorable solution to overpopulation is tough, and nothing works for 6.5 billion people.

Dave says: "Our vision must be not only technically possible but resonant with people's non-material needs and desires."

Problem is, most Americans are totally absorbed with their material needs and desires- the substitutes for spiritual needs. Our spiritual needs can be satisfied in almost any view of the future- they are independent of how 'green' is our future. We can envision a horrible future with mutated insects dominating nature, catastrophic weather events every day, and still have a (sheltered) happy, thriving community of spiritually satisfied human beings (except for those who apparently needed the Kind Old Mother Nature to be happy- those folks died off in the storms). Any green future is likely to satisfy non-material needs- it's the material desires that cause problems with our 'vision'- giving up the luxuries that we've come to rely on (that also cause destruction of global proportions)- that's where the challenge lies. The real condition to satisfy is 'technologically possible but resonant with people's material needs and desires'
in order to please today's Dick and Jane with our vision. If all people cared about was whether their non-material needs were being met in our vision, this would be easy.

a liberal in redsville

Reality bites

Sorry to fill my usual role of 'Debbie Downer', but you know as well as I do that the only way the Earth can feed it's current population (if indeed it can), is to destroy habitat, haul in artificial fertilizers, use genetic tinkering and pesticides to aggressively fight Nature's way, and burn plenty of cheap oil in the process.

If we were to suddenly stop all non-sustainable agricultural processes, war and starvation would be the result. If we make the transition slowly and our population continues to grow, the value of food (cheap labor or not) would skyrocket. I doubt if most of us could afford to eat sustainably, if by sustainable you mean in balance with the Earth's ecosystems.

Americans are perfectly happy being ignorant about where their food comes from, or at what real cost- as long as the cost to them is cheap. This will not change as long as big business is providing the food (from those beautiful green farms with happy cows they like to show in their commercials).

a liberal in redsville

a crazy dream

If we had a real democracy, where our lawmakers had the best interests of the public foremost in mind, they would mandate upgrading all power plants to a new, cleaner standard. This would generate new manufacturing jobs and would result in a healthier population with reduced health care spending. Energy companies would (of course) pass on the cost to consumers, making energy efficiency a higher priority and alternative energy sources more competative, thus stimulating even more job growth in new sectors.

If anyone in congress even proposed such legislation, they would probably wake up to the sound of police at the door the next morning and find themselves in bed with a dead prostitute. Or, it would scare the energy barons into begging for the good old NSR.

a liberal in redsville

interdependence

A short story in Sierra Club magazine told how a young biologist had a tree he discovered cut down so he could study the rings for his thesis. When they were counted, it was learned that he had killed the oldest living thing on Earth.

It seems that the problem with humanity's interaction with Nature is his attitude- Man does not approach living things or special places with the kind of respect and honor that he gives his own species. Haven't we learned enough to know that our actions can be disasterous, and there are times and places where Man should just let it be?

I think I am not alone in my fear that one day, a very important link in the chain of life on Earth will break- one possibly unknown species goes extinct, leading to a collapse of the whole web of life. Species ARE interdependent, and the air, water, and soil we need to survive are tied into the web in ways we may never understand. The assumption that we know what we are doing (and that our impact is minimal) may be what kills us.

a liberal in redsville

self-restraint and green corridors

Backcut makes a good point about (the Christian) religion- it does (for lots of folks) lead them to believe that 'believing' is all they really have to do- God will take care of the rest. Sure, He "helps those who help themselves" -to the endless bounty that was put here for believers, right? Somehow, our friends behind the pulpit have GOT to get people to think about self- restraint, about limits to growth, about the value of future generations, human or otherwise. Perhaps it's time to re-write the Bible again (After all, Jesus never said the Earth was our 'property'). Or maybe Earth-centered religions will enjoy a renaissance.

As for ESZ's, what if we use trains (remember those?) that carry food and other needed materials into the city from small towns that serve as collection points? We could truck food from 30 miles or less, to be sold, loaded onto the train, and whisked into the city. Wildlife corridors could surround the trains, which would have elevated wildlife-crossing points. Farms could be spread out between the wild zones. It could support a lot more people than suburbs. I just hope somebody really IS making those holograms that may be all some of us get to see of Mother Nature at Her best.

a liberal in redsville

visualize a green future

I think I (finally) see where Dave is going with this. Our message is unappealing because it tends to be one of gloom and doom (without much humor), and because we don't seem to have any solutions that we can all get behind. There are good reasons for this (the situation is indeed dire, we ARE killing the Earth, and no easy solution exists), but let's forget that for a moment. We are open to criticism because a) we cannot PROVE that the Earth is dying, or that humans are causing it, and b) we expect people to make sacrifices based on our assumption.

So what if we just pretend- what if we imagine that it IS possible to save the Earth, and that we CAN do it without huge changes or sacrifices (shivering in the dark, as Dave says). What if we all put aside our negativity for a time each day and just imagine what the world might look like if we DID save it. Imagine a future where people are healthy, happy, and clean, and at the same time, the Earth is healthy, vibrant, and green. What would a day in this world look like? What would life be like? If we each spend some time every day imagining this bright green future, we can help form tenuous strands of connective power between that reality and the current one. If we hold this image in our minds when we speak to 'normal people', might we have more effect on them? Might we be seen as 'visionaries' or 'prophets of a better world', instead of purveyors of gloom and doom?

So what if we're wrong- so what if it's unrealistic- if we give up our connections to that potential reality, then we make if harder for it to come into existence. If WE cannot see a bright future that is also green, then WHO will? The anthropocentrists? The politicians? I don't think so. It is up to US to visualize a green, happy future, if it is to be.

This will be very hard for me, because it see evidence every day that it is too late, that nobody cares, etc. But that negativity doesn't help me or the movement. I need to practice- so I suggest to Dave- put up an idea and set the rules out, as an exercise for us- NO NEGATIVITY- force us to be on our best behavior- only positive thoughts allowed. Say something nice or go over there and sulk with the biocentrist pessimists (like birdboy). We can do it- for a little while at first, then maybe for longer periods.

a liberal in redsville

pre-shutting up words

I get the feeling you don't want to have this conversation, (it has moved 3 times) but should you get the last word? Hmmm...

I just don't get your point about 'values'. You assume that only humans assign value to things and claim that this means nothing has value without a human to assign it.

First, I don't believe your assumption is true. If you capture a wild animal, and watch him struggle to be free, can you not see that he values his freedom? If you look into his eyes, do you see only blind instinct, or a desperate, emotional need for the thing he has lost? Is there any difference between 'instinct' and the thing we call 'emotion'? How can we possibly know, unless we get inside the non-human's mind and experience what they do. I'll bet their instinctive compulsion feels just like emotion to them- that their needs feel just like our values.

Regardless of whether other beings can value things, they have lives, existance, and no matter how much we think of ourselves, we should not take it away from them if it can be avoided. We have an obligation to protect things because we can identify with them (empathy), which leads to harmony, which is our purpose.

But you're right, we have an obligation to work together, because we want the same things, even if it's for different reasons. I certainly don't want to scare off any 'normal people'. (Do we have any of those here at Grist?)

a liberal in redsville

a matter of choice

I think some of you are missing an important point: Humans are aware that they are harming ecosystems, aware that changing their behavior could minimize the adverse effects, and advanced enough to find ways of living with minimal impact. This is in contrast to the above metioned 'destructive' behavior of bacteria, tsunamis, and beavers.

"The first massive pollution probably came about when oxygen producing bacteria came onto the scene, and polluted the entire earth with their oxygen.  This caused mass extinctions of anaerobic bacteria which could not tolerate the oxygen. However, was this a 'crime'? "

The bacteria was not able to alter its behavior and probably unaware that it was changing the face of the Earth. The beaver has few alternatives to his actions. Humans are capable of altering their impact- yet have chosen to ignore or deny that they are doing anything wrong usually because they believe they are more important than any other species.

a liberal in redsville

simply put

Environmentalism is the defense of the Earth's natural ecosystems from unnatural (ie, man-made) threats.

Or a great way to scam stupid humans. Right, Captain?

a liberal in redsville

whose environment is it?

It's not that we want to 'settle the philosophical question' (we each know that we are right) but that the biocentrist perspective has been blamed for the 'impotence' of the movement, and it is (undeniably) an easy target for those with opposite goals. That and the undercurrent some of us have sensed for a rejection of biocentrism and the conversion of environmentalism to humanitarianism. We have reacted by challenging the human-centered view, which is frequently at odds with our biocentrist goals. Dave, if you cannot see the value of natural things outside their usefulness to human survival and comfort, why should you care if Nature survives the human cancer? Does the bird not value his freedom or the trees he needs to survive? If all you care about is human, all else is surely doomed.

I'm afraid that humanity CAN survive the death of Nature- it would be an ugly, cold world (to me), but If we are to line up behind an 'index card' (and I think we should), then we must reach an agreement about our motivations- do we value Nature in and of itself- in effect, does wilderness, with no human presence, have any right to exist if humanity needs the space or 'resources'? Couldn't we just build a big air and water purifier that would serve the same purpose for humanity? Is it just because it's pretty to look at? Here- try this hologram- you won't know the difference. Or will you?

Absolutely, we must act together with unified force. But that requires doing things that satisfy both goals, and as Jeff points out, sometimes they DO conflict. Perhaps we should look into the places where they conflict and work out our differences (or better yet, define our parallels).

a liberal in redsville

attitudes and the economy

'Resource consumption'
When you call the blessings of life on Earth 'resources', you reduce them to things that serve man- they exist not for themselves or for diversity but to provide humans with what they need or want. This attitude is at the heart of the problem- the reason the Earth is in trouble. We do not deny that we have needs, and that we consume life to live, but what you call 'resources' are blessings provided by a loving Earth Mother. In this view, we take what we need to live (no more) and we put back whatever we can to support the ecosystem of which we are a part. No one claims to be able to live without eating or without shelter and clothing, but many believe that the closer you come to this way of living, the closer you are to being at peace. 'Resource consumption' is living on a regional, national, or global scale, which cannot be supported by the Earth. We advocate for living within our ecosystem- locally, where if you kill the trees, you live without wood. As with so many things, it is a matter of scale- the difference between mass consumption (abuse) and respectful, minimal, cooperative use. We may need to kill a deer to live through the winter, but we don't kill enough to harm the population, we don't destroy their homes, and we will provide food for them when snow is deep- we are respectful, thankful, and protective of them. If you kill the deer, skin it, gut it, and clean up the blood, you have faced the fact of the kill- you feel your debt. If you drive to the store and buy ground hamburger, you feel nothing- you can even ignore that a kill was made, unaware that big ag cleared a rainforest in Brazil so those cattle could graze. If we each had to cut down the trees on our alloted land to build our homes, we would feel the true cost of our shelter in the reduced quality of our land. When we buy a finished home from our realtor, painted and carpeted, we have no sense of the cost to the Earth's forests.

'Hypocrites'
The very fact that we live in America makes it impossible for us to live the way we should. We don't control where our food comes from, what our homes are made of, and the practices of those who 'serve our needs' (like big agriculture, forestry, and mining). We have few choices, unless we can afford to buy land and live on it minimally. Many of us would LOVE to bail out of this harmful system and gain control over our relationship with Nature- but would that help save the rest of the Earth from the 'system'? Wouldn't that be a cop-out? Couldn't we do more good by sticking around, trying to influence people and government for change, while adding as little as we can to the burden on the Earth? Sure, we are hypocrites, because we don't support the system that we are trapped within.

'Science or Facts'
I have yet to see any science or facts that prove that killing trees is harmless, good for the Earth or diversity, or even necessary for human survival. Much of what has been passed for science here is unprovable statements that support the theory that we must kill trees or that killing trees is good for forests or diversity. No one will be proven wrong or right in this discussion, since it is really about attitudes. I cannot prove that man is responsible for a lack of diversity or unhealthy forests, or even climate change, and I cannot prove that man can live without cutting trees. Certainly, early humans moving into harsh
climates might have died without cutting trees. But we all agree that some amount of using the blessings of the Earth can be tolerated if humans have the proper attitude and respect (and few enough numbers). Killing huge numbers of trees to sell for profit so that other humans can expand their numbers and take over more wilderness is abusive and shameful, and must stop.

I support an end to cutting on public lands, outlawing imported wood, and dis-incentives to cutting on private land. The cost of 'lumber' would skyrocket. This would be (temporarily) devastating to our (inflated) economy. But since most new housing is speculative (and not needed) anyway, no one will be left out in the rain. This will stop new home building in it's tracks- new housing developments would be abandoned. Most of the jobs lost would be to illegal aliens who could go to work on the many small farms that would re-appear when the housing bubble pops. Wood products could be economically recycled and re-used, since it is no longer cheaper to kill trees. Man, it just gets better as I dream- must I stop?

FACT: Most new development is not driven by a real need for more (or bigger) housing, but by profit motive and government subsidies that make new growth a necessary part of our inflated economy. Growth MUST end, and re-distribution, re-use, and recycling can fill the gap while we adjust to a shrinking economy and a shrinking impact on the Earth.On It's time for conservationists to collaborate with an agency they've long demonized posted 3 years, 8 months ago 103 Responses

what it's like to be human

is to love trees, forests, and the creatures that need them. Trees symbolize the human bond with Nature- their roots embrace the Earth, their branches touch the sky, and their lives transcend the elements.

Trees have served Man for too long- the strain on the Earth is becoming apparent in the poor health of what now passes for a forest- their collective existance is threatened by the short-term, near-sighted vision of the human race. I think we all understand how the disruption of one link, the disappearance of just one species, could take down an entire ecosystem. But since we can't prove it was Man's doing in a Federal court, we can't stop the killing of trees or other forms of life.

Is it wise, in these times (where R and D is a tool of the R's), to trust any agency of the federal government? Let's remember who's running the show, and what they are willing to do to feed extractive industies (Sierra Club excluded).

The way to save the Earth's forests is not better management of a 'valuable resource' but to respect their worth as living, breathing, members of the web of life. By teaching open-minded humans to see the spiritual value of an old-growth forest, we can empower humanity to share the tree's long-term, long-distance, perspective, and perhaps earn our own prosperity.On It's time for conservationists to collaborate with an agency they've long demonized posted 3 years, 8 months ago 103 Responses

mis-misanthropized

OK, that's it. I've ignored the 'misanthropist'-slinging as long as I can. Just because a person cares as much (or more) about non-human forms of life as he does about human forms does not make him a people-hater. Just because a person criticizes destructive human behavior does not mean he hates people. The goal has never been to rid the world of humans (even though their behavior does resemble that of a cancer on the Earth). The goal is to change human behavior, and it won't change if people think that humans should do whatever makes humans more comfortable, without regard to the effect on other species.

I get this every time I criticize American attitudes and foreign policy- that makes me an America-hater (because if you love your country, you support it no matter what it does). When I point out the way Christianity has been used to justify bad human behavior (environmentally and socially), I become a Jesus-hater. All of the above is just the easiest way to deflect criticism- it does not require defending your position, it serves only to nullify the opposing position. You can do better- show me how to save the Earth while focusing on human needs, instead of dismissing me as hating people for not putting them first. Putting people first will not  necessarily help other forms of life- in fact, it has historically contributed to the destruction of other forms of life.

Dave- I'll take your "strategic impotence" because most people's view of the Earth is SO self-centered that they respond defensively whenever anyone mentions other species. If the opinions of people who love Mother Nature 'too much' (which seems to be our crime), are not welcome here, then this is a pale green blog. C'mon Dave, is it "moral obtuseness" to love the Earth more than human comfort? We deep greens would love to hear what you mean by that.

If you want to save the baby humans, that's great- if you're smart, you know that you will need a healthy planet to do it. My goal is to save the planet's health so that the baby everything can live. We should be looking for methods that can achieve both goals instead of squabbling over who's is most righteous.

a liberal in redsville

reflex aversion

It should be illegal to import wood not 'harvested' in a sustainable manner (if it really can be done). These practices are why America is not what it pretends to be- our biggest export may be environmental crime. This is the unintended result of environmental laws that exist in America only because of those troublesome tree-huggers who Friedman paints as villains!

In those thriller movies, when the villain is down, I'm the guy yelling 'kill him- NOW!". I'm just sayin'...

The forest service still hasn't offered to sit down with me and discuss 'good management'. Instead, they sit down with loggers, decide what to do, and then announce it like it's a done deal. The comment period is allowed to pass, and the comments are noted and filed (under 'yah, right'). Hence, the lawsuit.

When they re-structure the FS and re-write it's primary mission statement to a quick-shift toward restoration, and hire guys like atreyger to run the show, then we should sit down and talk.

Our problem is not that logging is hard to do with a loving touch, but that we have a voracious (and unnecessary) appetite for wood. We should be fighting the problem from the demand side, as well as the supply side. Better management goes under the heading of short-term goals, but it worries me when people tell me I have to accept that our reckless consumption is not going to change. Stop saying that.On It's time for conservationists to collaborate with an agency they've long demonized posted 3 years, 9 months ago 103 Responses

but in practice...

Thanks, atreyger- your expertise is apparent. It sounds great, but I gotta tell ya, I've never seen it done that way. Surely, much of what you discuss is untested, since that kind of logging has not been practiced for long in many places. If the USFS was only proposing that kind of cutting, I seriously doubt it would be in court defending it's decisions very often. To expect logging companies to exercise that kind of self-restraint without major arm-twisting is unrealistic, in my opinion. It is still much cheaper and profitable (in the short term) to clear large areas at a time, leaving very little behind (under the guise of fire prevention).

I'm confused about the water issue- don't trees act as water purifiers, taking in polluted rainwater and releasing pure water vapor?

It still seems unwise to me to trust the agency responsible for so much short-sightedness- like the villan who is down, but will rise up as soon as you let down your guard.

Forgive me for respecting the life force within the trees- I still would prefer to see wood alternatives, wood re-use and recycling. If our economy relies on new developments and housing growth for it's health, then we are on a fast track to destruction of our ecosystem.On It's time for conservationists to collaborate with an agency they've long demonized posted 3 years, 9 months ago 103 Responses

NOT so good...

How can you say "Forests are a wonderful spiritual thing" and in the same breath say " The thought that 'killing a tree is bad' is ludicrous"? Apparently, the tree's only 'spiritual' worth is the one that fools like me imagine it has- any value other than it's material use as 'wood' or 'lumber' is irrelevant. You also claim that "clear-cutting 'working-forests' is also NOT A BAD THING". I suppose a 'working forest' is one that Man has chosen to serve Him and no other creature, and therefore grows only the kind of tree that He wants until it is time to die. Tell us, exactly what is the 'right way' to clear-cut a forest? How do you make up for the 100+ years of organic matter lost from the soil? How do you protect the ground from baking in the sun and washing away in direct rainfall, with nothing to shade the ground or to soak up the water? How do you purify the water that the trees used to aspirate? Do you put back the used wood to feed the forest floor- or does it go into a landfill? Obviously, what WOULD be needed to put back what was taken is rarely (if ever) done. What you call 'good forestry' is really the science of deferring the true cost of forest destruction to other generations and other species. It can be 'maintained' for just so long, but it is NOT sustainable.

You cannot really believe that there is no environmental cost to clearing an old-growth hardwood forest, full of diversity and accumulated life force, and replacing it with a disease  susceptible tree-farm that gets clear-cut until the land is truly dead and finally sold off to housing developers or ranchers.

Perhaps home sizes have increased (in large part) because USFS give- aways and the privatization of forests has kept lumber costs artificially low (just like oil subsidies).

If the forest service is indeed tied up in court (by hypocritical bleeding heart ecologists who have misplaced their spirituality), wouldn't it be more efficient if it gave up destructive policies that are not sustainable and not supported by the public but by private logging companies and the developers who swoop in after clear-cuts?

I'm sure you won't object if one day the 'more advanced and deserving' species that planted it's crop of humanity on this planet returns to reap the harvest and consume mankind for it's noble purpose. You will say "ahh, that's the meaning of life" and willingly jump into the people-chipper, right?On It's time for conservationists to collaborate with an agency they've long demonized posted 3 years, 9 months ago 103 Responses

really bad sci-fi

"...human habitation on Mars is a good idea as an insurance policy against disaster on Earth."

I want some of what this guy's been smoking. Is this why NASA is wasting research money on human space travel? I thought Bush came up with this one on his own- it reflects his level of understanding of the challenges we face.

When our planet becomes so toxic and uninhabitable as to make Mars look attractive, (and it just might if we pursue infinite fossil fuel use, and widespread fission and fusion reactors), I think we should do the Universe a favor, admit that we suck, and just die off gracefully in our own pool of toxic waste.

If we had spent the money already wasted trying to harness fusion and trying to deal with fission waste on the deployment of existing clean and relatively harmless energy sources and more efficient ways to use energy, we might not need to have your wonderful imagination or (killer weed) to see a bright future.

a liberal in redsville

not so much...

You can also buy oversized pick-ups with a tall smokestack that belches black deisel smoke and roars just like the old tractor trailers. In my neighborhood, they are becoming popular (as gas prices go back down) and are most often used for commuting, but occasionally used to haul an ATV into the woods. Around here, 'greenwashing' is bad for business, 'cause nobody want's to look like one of those Prius drivin' girlie-men. Real men pollute- greenies are weenies.

It's obvious that many of you live in progressive islands rumored to be infesting the North. Down here, progressive means cutting trees and laying pavement for new developments. Leaders in my state want to sell off the State Park land to developers to help balance their budget (and pay for the 500 million dollar convention center that we REALLY need to get more 'progressive'). I wish I could share in your  enthusiasm, but below the Mason-Dixon line, the green revolution is fantasy.

a liberal in redsville

we'd like to help, but it's just too expensive...

Dave makes an excellent point about the so-called 'cost' of reducing CO2 emissions, which we should shout from their housetop solar panels (since the media won't cover it). Economics and sociology are what you call 'fuzzy science' (no offense to those working in the field), but come on, how can you predict what people or nations will do? How can you separate human free will from these topics and possibly estimate the cost of any sweeping global or even national policy change? Have we ever done it accurately? I'd put more faith in a tarot reading.

Surely human civilization is capable of making incredible changes to the way they interact with their environment, if they WANT TO. But this incredibly dismal estimate of the 'cost' of change is a clear statement that they (this administration) do not want to allow the change.

a liberal in redsville

reducing population and poverty

Inspiring comments from SMLowry; it's nice to hear from other people who've experienced the magic in Nature. If only we could share these experiences with the 'indoor' folks without freaking them out. One of the most impressive projects I've heard of is Sierra Club's outings for inner city kids. It gives them a chance to experience the peace and beauty of nature, something they never get deep in their world of concrete, traffic, and peer pressure. If only the schools mandated such outings for all kids, the love for Mother just might spread like a wildfire. I don't believe their poverty is a barrier to their ability to feel the Earth rhythms; it is their unhealthy environment and the lack of any opportunity to escape that environment that keeps them isolated from nature.

Dave; maybe I'm a fool to question Lester Brown (blaspheme?), but while it is obvious that reducing population CAN reduce poverty (more is at least available for everyone), it is not so obvious to me that reducing poverty is effective at reducing population. Is this assumed to follow from the observation that rich countries have smaller population growth than poor countries? Doesn't that ignore all the other influences, like better education and the accelerated population growth that occurred while those countries were attaining their higher standard of living? At some point, most of those countries largely saturated their space and resource availability, and THEN reduced their population growth.

It seems likely that while a poor country is being lifted out of mass poverty, there will be an initial increase in population growth, as food becomes more readily available, health care improves, and infant mortality decreases. If your first two children died of malnutrition or disease, will you not try again when food and medicine are available? As the growing population saturates their resource input (i.e., drains as much as it can from the Earth), then they will (might) begin to reduce their population growth. But without education about the importance of birth control and the means to do so, bringing people out of poverty may not be very effective at controlling population growth.

Please don't misunderstand me- I advocate poverty reduction out of compassion for humanity. I think it can (and should) be done without further harming the Earth, by re-distributing the wealth already accumulated- stop feeding the Earth's bounty to animals that eventually feed humans and just feed humans.

But I still think that poverty is the result of a lack of human compassion for humans and not some environmental indiscretion. Our spiritual evolution should go beyond simple compassion for our own kind and flower into a compassion for all things existing in the natural world; without this, our work will never be appreciated by most of humanity.

a liberal in redsville

the green shrub

It's almost like his working assumption is that the American public is ignorant and gullible- oh, wait- nevermind.

a liberal in redsville

easy but useless

The only way to save the Earth and all her diversity is easily summed up in a few lines: problem is, no one wants to hear them, and few dare speak them. It's not pretty- drastic change never is. No slight course correction will avoid the cliff edge- it requires a 180 degree turn- anything else only postpones the inevitable crash.

1.    Stop all destructive activities- clear-cutting, mining, pollution, overfishing, etc.
   
2.    Shrink every large consumer-based economy- reduce to bare necessities, and share the existing wealth with the poor.
   
3.    Stop and reverse human population growth.
   
4.    Start reversing the damage already done- reforestation, reclaiming floodplains, riverbanks, pollution clean-ups, etc.

Of course, most Americans would rather die than make this kind of change. The result is that many (who genuinely care about the Earth) have swallowed the lie- they claim that we can continue to grow and prosper if we support this or that new technology or government policy. But all these ideas are all flawed in some way, because of the lie they are based on. Nuclear, ethanol, hybrids, are all unsustainable for anything near our current population, because they require mining, deforestation, and road-building. When enviro's pander to the selfish attitude that Americans refuse to give up, their compromised ideas don't stand up to scrutiny and serve only to annoy those who are pulling the strings and worse, give the appearance of inconsistency and futility to our cause.

a liberal in redsville

Bozo in Wonderland

I hope they do make the movie, and it's shown on TV so everybody sees just how stupid the whole idea is. What do they think that enviro's have to gain from getting their way? Are we going to get rich when environmental laws successfully enforce the protection of the Earth? Will the climate scientist-geeks become famous Hollywood stars, and outshine football 'heros'?

Seriously, I think if the movie is as stupid as your description of the book, it will give enviro's something to point and laugh about, and will serve our cause by exposing the right-wing use-it-up-before-somebody-else-does ideology.

a liberal in redsville

just look up

And in another few thousand years, chimps might build a gasoline-burning engine, use explosives to remove mountain-tops, and otherwise screw things up- if they get a chance.

Why do you want to 'cure' our sentience? It is only a problem if we choose to act badly in spite of our awareness of the consequences. Why couldn't our sentience lead to a realization that all we really need is food, warmth, and companionship? Why couldn't we choose to love and honor the Earth, to replace what we take from it, instead of brushing it off for some imagined afterlife in some other place, where the ruined Earth matters to no one?

You left out one cure for sentience- Christianity. Here, we are not responsible for what we do to our environment, because it is only our 'eternal soul' (which resides outside the physical world), and our faith in God (above, not here) that really matters. With this belief, we have only to look up and our trespasses are forgiven and forgotten.

a liberal in redsville

desperately seeking harmony

Question: exactly how should humanity work with Nature- how do we achieve harmony with the full diversity of our planet?

We have exceeded the Earth's capacity to support humanity at any 'standard of living', so reducing our population is job one. The fewer people consuming resources, the higher the standard of living the Earth can sustain. We must consume life to live, and I can't imagine much human life without some agriculture, but surely there is a way that a reasonable number of people can grow what they need without causing ecosystem collapse! My garden sure looks like a plus to the environment.

Our man Lester Brown deserves credit from deep enviro's, because he is doing what we can't seem to do- he is endorsing solutions, laying out the roadmap. He faces certain doom with a level head, instead of getting emotional and desperate (I can't). If only enough people with power cared enough to convince Joe Public and to stop those profiting from the Earth's demise, I might share his optimism. For some of us, watching the Earth die at human hands is too painful to bear.

Deep down, you know, Dave, that Jeff and the rest of us are right about one thing- the Earth MUST come first in everything we do, because there is only ONE Earth and if we screw it up, nothing else matters for humanity. We should be in full damage control, actively trying to reverse what we have already done, and that simply cannot happen without sacrifices from all of us.

Sorry if my sense of humor gets lost in the struggle.

a liberal in redsville

ahhh- that's good satire

uh, dude, you didn't just 'disagree' with Dr. Hansen, you like, censored him... I'm pretty sure that IS 'watering down and lying' about science. This guy was a 24- year old college drop-out who helped Bush get elected- his reward was a job censoring and re-framing respected scientists at NASA for the GOP agenda.

And now the liberal media is ruining his 'good name'. I feel so ashamed.

a liberal in redsville

trust us?

could it be that industry lobbyists don't make good regulators?

I agree with amazing that the biggest reason NOT to go nuclear is that we don't have reliable, safe monitoring of industry practices. Yet, it is possible- look at the military- they manage to work with dangerous and complex technology with very few accidents. Oh sure, their unlimited budget may help, but from my experience, it's not the reason their system of training, regulation, and monitoring operations works so well. It's because of the well-established chain of command and clear designation of responsibility. Something we have yet to see in our system of government.

With the newer technologies, some scientists claim that nuclear reactors CAN be inherently safe (pebble-bed reactors can't melt down, and the sheilding can resist any conventional weaponry), and with breeder reactors, could provide clean energy and greatly reduced waste for a very long time. But it all hinges on a system to enforce regulations, which we don't have.

a liberal in redsville

many futures ago

Excellent reading and awesome art.

Both address our relationship with nature, and how our self-awareness and fierce individualism have broken our bond with Earth Mother.

"the capacity for restraint is precisely what separates us from the rest of nature"

and yet we persist.

a liberal in redsville

typically pitiful pitance pacifies party patriots

It was a shock to hear Dubya talk about our addiction to oil- a pleasant, 5 volt kind of shock, capable of flipping a bit, but not of driving any current. But is that where your expectations are? I remember when we were leaders in new technology, forward thinking, inpiring and assisting the world into better, easier days. Is this kind of funding going to put US in the lead? Remember Japan's 10 billion in solar subsidies? This administration's contribution to the biggest problem in the history of man on Earth (global warming) is nothing to cheer about. Sounds like lip service to pacify elements of the party who admit there is a need for action and to thereby solidify the real push to dominate and control the world for US consumption.

Clearly, greed is still calling the shots from the White House. I suspect another big push to drill in the parks and the reserves will follow as the means to execute the Bush plan for energy independence (which has nothing to do with saving the Earth from reckless consumption).

a liberal in redsville

oops- did I say that?

C'mon Dave, you know as well as I do that environmental issues are about as high on the Evangelical list of things to do as 'kiss a Jew today'. How could it possibly matter to those who live their lives FOR the 'afterlife' whether they trash this place before they ditch it? As long as this congressman keeps his nose in people's bedrooms and his head stuffed up women's wombs, he'll be OK with this crowd.

a liberal in redsville

mmm, that's good pollution

Oh, sure, give them another reason to watch us like hawks- I can see the headlines now- "environmental groups claim growing pot will solve our energy problems"- jeeze, they already think we're loonies, now they can call us "loonies on dope".

But seriously, does it really matter if we grow weed or corn on the soil that should/could be supporting bio-diversity?

Has anyone looked at the real solution to depleted soil nutrients (that is, compost from human waste going back to the soil instead of into landfills with toxic waste)- at least that would make the ag-fuel a little less expensive and inefficient.

Wow, imagine- hemp grown on humanure fueling our transportation system. Instead of hydrocarbons in the air, we'd have (tetra)hydrocannibanol- people would fight for emissions testing jobs and property value near interstates would soar.

We'd still fry in our overheated atmosphere, but it might be easier to laugh about, eh?

a liberal in redsville

Sue Shrub

Is there any doubt that the Bush administration (if not the Shrub himself) instructed her to re-assure New Yorkers that they should return to work, and not worry? Question is whether she will (like so many others) take a fall for the administration, or will she get a conscience and lay blame where it is due?

This agency (EPA) has become the pawn of the profit-hungry, conscience-less party in power. They no longer work for the people. We're more likely to get environmental protection from 'market forces' .

a liberal in redsville

that's easy-

They find them in the industry they are appointed to regulate, as they did this guy. He has been accused of lax (to nill) enforcement of existing safety regulations, which (surprise!) may not be followed religiously by the industry.

a liberal in redsville

misnomer

Some of these 'definitions' completely miss the essence of 'terrorism', which is TERROR. Without the fear, it is not terrorism. If the general public is not concerned that they will be targeted for injury or death by a group with a 'cause' then that group is not a terrorist group. Using the word to describe desperate acts of property destruction where no one is hurt is just an attempt to instill fear in the public where none is due. This may be obvious enough to everyone that it falls flat. We can hope.

a liberal in redsville

values

Imagine for a moment that highly destructive practices lead to the extinction of all life and livability on Earth- no future for any life, conscious and breathing or not. Is preventing the end of all life on Earth a cause more important than one 'living, breathing' (Earth destroying) human? Is his 'stuff' more important?

I agree that criminal actions like arson probably do more harm than good for the Earth (by giving this administation an excuse to call environmentalists a 'threat' to national security), but I cannot agree that any one life is more important than the survival of our planet. It really boils down to how urgent you believe the situation is- some of us believe that we cannot afford to continue destructive activities another day without increasing the likelyhood that our planet will shrivel to a lifeless chunk of rock. This does not mean we should resort to violence, but it does mean that destructive industrial practices MUST somehow be stopped, and those jobs MUST disappear, and the suffering that our economy (may) endure is a sacrifice well worth making, for the good of all living things (not just man).

Does that make me an 'enemy of the state'?

a liberal in redsville

WARNING:

Materialistic obsession may be hazardous to your ecosystem. It can't be good for your spirituality, either, unless you DO get to take it with you. But I think their's a "NO CRAP beyond this point" sign on the door.

No solution is realistic unless we drop the mass consumption. America has been living on concrete and carpet for so long, we've forgotten the rewards of simple living, the happiness that the natural world can provide. We talk about 'family values' but we mean "more stuff for me and mine" above all else, Mother Earth included.

The truth is, no sacrifice, no hope. Saying otherwise is just pandering to those who want to keep their stuff and appear to be part of the solution.

a liberal in redsville

Huge!

I've been saying this for a long time. Imagine a dense neighborhood where 100 people get in their cars every day and go to the local MalWart- say, 5 miles on average, round trip ('cause MalWart is everywhere). They go to a huge store with a huge parking lot that used to be a forest. It uses huge amounts of energy to house and display all that crap that the people's buy.

Now imagine those people pointing and clicking from their living rooms. One small delivery truck is loaded up from a simple warehouse that holds stuff from the big truck (train?) that brought it yesterday, and heads out to the dense neighborhood, easily delivering every peice of junk to their doors that morning.

The difference is huge. The packaging is really not so different- most of that crap we buy in the store is packaged well enough to ship as it sits on the shelf. Containers can be re-used, picked up by the same truck.

But I don't see it happening in the U.S. anytime soon. People WANT to get in the car and drive to the store, and shop, and drive, and shop, and spend and consume and waste. Wheee!

a liberal in redsville

Dude can sink a nail, eh?

 Americans ain't exactly known for their intellectualism or their love for peace, now are we?

 We are living the American Dream- the one where we are the 'chosen ones', living in spendor with no worries, while the rest of the world envies. It is this black, wet dream that allows Petrolism to flourish in a 'democracy'.

a liberal in redsville

engines rule U.S.

If I may join in, I would propose that Jeff knows that you cannot change anyone's mind by sticking to your position, or even by lashing them with thorny facts 'up-side and down-side'. People simply refuse to believe what conflicts with their world view. It's part of what I believe to be human nature- we define reality for ourselves to match what others confirm to be true. Until a majority believes that private transportation is harmful to the environment (regardless of technological advances), it will be a radical, uncompromising position to most folks.

I think Jeff is simply stating what he (and others) believes to be true- that the individualistic attitude that most Americans are molded into (in large part by their overlord-engines) is going to continue to harm the planet. Having a sense of community (not 'hive mentality') will be required before we can attain a just, equitable, and Earth-friendly existance.

The problem with 'market forces' is that they respond to crisis only- they are crushing electric cars because the market won't turn enough profit (yet). Only when the price of gas exceeds what Americans can possibly afford will the market respond with alternatives. Only when the forests are gone will the market consider alternative building materials. The 'market' relies on high profit margins and broad public demand- and that won't change until attitudes change, which won't change until people are personally affected. The question is whether the Earth will survive the crisis that finally moves the mountain of ignorance.

a liberal in redsville

GOP enviro?

Sorry, Dave, but you won't find many folks in this crowd to argue that one. Every conservative I know is also anti-conservation. There seems to be a link. Conservatives are really about conserving their own property, their personal investments and interests. That just doesn't jive with the conservationist outlook- we look to the future and hope to make it better for all living things- they look at their bank book and want to make it better right now. Look at the pitiful number of GOP conservationists these days- LCV and Sierra Club have been tracking Republican votes on the environment, and more and more, they don't care. If you are pro-business, pro-growth, your not likely to be too worried about preserving the environment for the future. Perhaps it's because those who tell themselves that the poor are poor solely because they are lazy and/or stupid also tell themselves that conservation is lazy and stupid. That land could be turning a profit, providing fodder for consumers, why let it sit 'wasted', just waiting for someone else to take it for profit later?

Why should those who don't believe that opportunity is a limited resource believe that the Earth has limited resources either? I submit that the only real environmentalists are also liberals. Surely someone will object to that?

a liberal in redsville

I see horns

Really sad, isn't it? Those who are supposed to be America's 'moral heros' have snuggled up to some of the most disgusting, self-serving, money-worshiping, Earth-raping demons on the planet. This alliance between industry's political pawns (whose goal is permission to pollute and destroy at will) and fundamentalist religion (whose goal is to forcably convert the world to one religion) is rapidly eating holes in the fabric of our democracy. They sit and make up lies about those who love the Earth and those who want to bring peace and justice to the world in order to justify their self-serving closed-minded viewpoints. And people listen, and they believe.

Does anyone on Earth really worship an animal? Anyone who has studied ancient religions knows that the images they created were merely symbols of their version of a creator. And is the Christian version of creation any closer to what science has taught us than the Pagan's was? Is it any more correct? More pertinent, does it make the cause of protecting the Earth from man's indiscretion any less worthy? Does Inholf sitting down with Robertson to scoff at liberals make the polluters he represents any less repulsive? Can the viewers not see the horns sticking out of that man's head?

a liberal in redsville

resistance is futile

Like so many others who visit Gristmill, I sent numerous letters to my senators opposing CAFTA, the putrid energy bill, the distortion of science, and the appointment of a conservative judge to the Supreme Court. It is wasted time. They couldn't care less what the masses want, what the environment needs, or what's good for our future. They are owned by the dollar- short term profits for big players. You can count the exceptions on one hand. The rest do not represent the people; what's worse, most people accept this as business as usual. They seem to believe that what is good for fat cats is good for the country. This is what years of apathy have gotten us- a broken, corrupt excuse for democracy. God help America- whatever the hell it is- whatever it has become.

Somebody throw me a bone- a reason to hope? Anyone?

a liberal in redsville

hiding the lie

People assume that when politicians support farm subsidies, they are trying to help impoverished small family farms. Few people know the truth about serious loopholes in the regulations that allow massive farms to qualify for subsidies by 'dividing' their land on paper. Where is the media when you need them- chasing Hollywood perverts?

a liberal in redsville

with no sacrifice?

It is incredibly naive to think that through technological advances, the Earth can forever sustain all it's people at the same comfy standard of living we enjoy now, requiring no sacrifice from 'consumers'. If people really are naturally and perpetually greedy and refuse to make sacrifices for the benefit of the environment or for future generations, then we have handed an impossible task to the engineers, and we are surely doomed.

What is suggested is that we keep private transportation, 2000+ square-foot air conditioned homes full of automated power conveniences AND do this for 9 billion people on this little planet, by simply encouraging the 'growth' of technology. This so-called technology would in fact have to be magic- it simply cannot grow exponentially- there are limits, physical limits to what can be done. Technology is just the manipulation of resources to produce a desired functionality. Without raw materials, energy, and manufacturing, you have no technology. It may require few or relatively benign resources extraction, where possible, but it still requires energy and materials. These, remember, are limited. If technology is improving exponentially, then it must soon pass into the realm of magic, and physicists will have a hell of a time explaining it.

Let's get real, folks- energy comes at a cost. We will never get energy without producing some toxic waste or greenhouse gas, without some energy expenditure to produce the energy source. Nothing is 100% efficient and 100% 'clean', and technology cannot change that. Solar panels require plastics, strong acid treatments, mining for rare metals, and energy input to build them. Unless we violate the laws of physics, something will be consumed, wasted, and emitted. It doesn't matter what your car runs on, it still needs a body, a windshield, wheels, and a road to drive on. All of these things impact negatively on the environment- imagine the effect of a few billion cars. Walking requires only shoes and food, but even that compacts the earth so nothing grows on your path. Air conditioning is energy intensive, and always will be- you can't move heat around without consuming energy. Do you really believe we can provide A/C for 9 billion people without harming the Earth?

The most 'green' and sustainable lifestyle (i.e., the one that might save the planet) is not waiting for technological advances but for people who are willing to settle for a little less. Trees serve as air conditioners while helping the environment, if you are willing to settle for 'cooler' instead of 'cool'. Walking consumes energy, but it keeps us healthy and reduces the need for medical care. I'm not advocating 'all or nothing', but a few compromises, a little sacrifice. If you say that humans are not capable of such benevolence, then you are the one who is giving up, and you are accepting doom for our entire planet.

Believing that technology will save us serves only one purpose- it justifies our current unsustainable lifestyle. It does not help the engineers to throw all our faith and trust in their creative abilities. Money for research does not flow faster if we believe everything is fine and there is no emergency- this is the lie the right-wing pushes today, and it justifies deferring the problem, as we always have more immediate concerns (terrorism), and they get the big bucks (400 billion).

Go ahead, enjoy your cushy lifestyle, don't worry about the future, the techies will fix it. If we believe with all our selfish hearts, it will come true.

a liberal in redsville

techno-visionary?

Technology is already here to help- problem is, people don't want it! Hybrid cars are not exactly outselling big trucks and SUV's, are they? Public transportation, which might have delayed climate change for decades (if people wanted it), is not waiting for 'innovation'. Incandescent bulbs and electricity are still cheap, so the better bulb sits on the shelf. 'Energy star' is more expensive than 'energy hogs'. This stuff could be easing the burden on the Earth right now, if people wanted it, or if our government would help it compete. But instead, our leaders tell us the economy will shrivel if it doesn't keep growing- we have to buy 'more'- forget 'better'. Technology is already here to save the day, but attitudes continue to ruin it. People want More, Bigger, and Cheaper- if you think technology can give us all that and still preserve the Earth for the future, you must be dreaming. We WANT disposable, convenient,  big and showy, not efficient, sufficient, and earth-friendly. Until this attitude changes, all the techno-help in the world won't save us.

Of course, my ranting isn't going to change anybody's mind; but since I don't have the techno-solution to 'environmentally friendly mass consumption', the best I can do is to advocate an attitude change. I'm still working on that Hummer that runs on water- I just need more funding...

a liberal in redsville

Obama '08

Senetor Obama, you da man.

Howard Dean recently said that 80% of Republicans are actually Democrats who don't know what's going on. OK, he's an incurable optimist, but if anyone could explain to those people what IS going on and what SHOULD be going on, it's Barack Obama. Just imagine what could happen if this guy was elected president in 2008. I'm going to go do that for a while.

a liberal in redsville

political science

Wait a minute- why is the issue of global warming still considered a 'political battle' at all? Whether or not human activity is changing the climate and how quickly it might change are NOT political issues! The political question is whether or not to DO anything about it, on a national level. If you exclude those who clearly have something to lose  from government regulation or are being supported by those who do (Exxon), there is really no debate. And what do these audacious scientists advise our leaders do?

Stop denying it      (never!)
Work together       (with foreigners?)
Find solutions        (don't tell us what to do!)
Help developing nations    (there goes cheap labor)
Show leadership    (who, US?)
Learn more           (we know enough)

So let's see, our politicians should be realistic, cooperative, innovative, helpful leaders who thirst for knowledge.
Boy, these guys are really out of their league- where do they get off choosing sides in a political issue?

a liberal in redsville

purify the earth?

Thanks, Danzac, for saving me from that bear, but that's not a fair comparison. It's not really 'us or them'- instead, we're shoving them right off the planet just by choosing to allow one more logging project, another strip mine, or a Wal-Mart. We allow it because it benefits humans, and they are far more important in the Christian view. True, I have not heard the words 'no beast is worth more than what I can take from it', from the pulpit, yet this is the attitude of many (not a minority) who attend church every Sunday. Their view of Christianity supports their attitude, and allows them to justify their acts. As you quote 'fill the earth and subdue it', my neighbor hears 'crank up the ATV'. What is needed is a quote like 'love the earth and protect it from greed'. We need a sound-byte, a one-liner that refutes the popular (mis)interpretation. So what if the fundamentalists have it wrong- they are speaking for Christianity, speaking loudly, and I hear very little objection from your (very silent) 'majority'.

The proclaimation that we need not worry about the environment, that God will provide for us all, no matter how many, was from something recently pointed out here at Grist; I forget the source, but the author was one of the loud-mouthed fundamentalists who have gained so much power in American politics today. If this is really such a minority view, seen as absurd by the majority, where are all the voices of dissent? Where is the objection to the fundies taking over? Where was the objection to the war? Where is the shock and horror over their association with the party of greed?

As for evil in nature, Scoyle has it right. Humans have a natural tendency to be violent and sexual. The source is obvious if you don't refute evolution- just watch the critters. But fundies deny the link, and explain the natural urges as the influence of the devil- sexual temptations, violent behavoir, these are the things we must fight, because they are the evil within us. What I call natural is what you call evil. To attain eternal life, we must repress these evil urges, the same ones the animals give in to.

A thought experiment; imagine a dense area of woods; the undergrowth is high, and it is quite dark from the shade of so many trees. Think about walking into it- what do you imagine? Do you see a multitude of species, all moving about busily, enjoying their lives, interacting, communicating, harmonizing? Do you feel kinship, a sense of oneness? Do you want to sit and stay awhile, to soak it all in?

Or, do you think of bugs biting, stinging, crawling on you, snakes sneaking up on you, wild animals watching you, waiting for the perfect time to pounce on you and gorge on your flesh? Do you want to turn and run, pick up your cell-phone, and call someone with a bulldozer to come and clear this mess, plant some grass, and spray for bugs? Should we mourn the loss of these wild, murderous, soulless beasts? Don't be silly, they'll just go somewhere else and eat non-Christians.

Which vision do you think is the most common one? Do I blame religion? Well, I would first blame our intellect for finding so many ways to effectively subdue nature, leaving us disconnected from it, unfeeling toward it. We have severed our roots, and we scorn the earth from which we sprang. But did religion play a role in the development of this attitude toward our Mother? You betcha! I submit that if Christianity had proclaimed from the beginning that we owed a huge debt to all of nature, and had a religious obligation to protect it, and all the creatures in it, even if it meant a few sacrifices to man's own advancement, things would never have gotten this bad. Instead, Christianity has provided ready-to-use justifications for clearing the land of all that is not human. Humanity is far more important, the Earth is God's gift to us, it is our duty to tame it, subdue it, cleanse it of evil and fill it with humans (who, unlike the animals, are made in His image). Faith requires us to believe that He will provide for us, that His power is infinite, and that the only thing that really matters is that we believe, and Heaven awaits us. Maybe these are misinterpretations, even perversions of what was really meant, but they are the popular aspects of Christian faith, and very little is being said to refute the use of these principles by those who profit from the destruction. Worse than 'no comment' from the pulpit, we hear about the greatness of the 'American way of life', which does NOT exclude our gluttonous appetite for the Earth's resources at the expense of the rest of life on Earth. The religious right even supports the current war, openly, as the 'correct response to terrorism'. Can you think of a more environmentally destructive action than war?

Aggression and sexuality are undeniably common to humans and animals; once useful traits, they are harmful to society, and must be subdued, repressed. It is of course, natural for young boys to behave aggressively, and sexual desires are as natural as hunger. But these aspects of human nature are vilified; this is the evil that tempts man and must be defeated. They are closely associated with nature- 'unguided' human behavior very closely mimics animal behavior. But the association puts nature to blame for the worst in humans- when we subdue the wild places, we are subduing our own animal urges, clearing our souls as we clear the land. Now it is so organized, peaceful, and quiet. The beast is dead, and the human wins eternal life. No, the words don't appear in the Bible, but the connection is clear, the associations are everywhere, and the effect is the same. Tame Nature to tame Man. The bulldozer is the purifier.

a liberal in redsville

religion in nature

Any historian will tell you that organized religion is used by conquerers to control their growing populations; the religious leaders back-up the political rulers by telling people what to believe and how to worship. Without this control, local traditional spirituality would encourage independent thought and make it difficult to control the people and to exploit their resources. This is still happening today with the alignment of  corporate America and the religious right in the Republican Party. Even if you don't condone the exploitation, by associating yourself with a particular religion, you align yourself with everything it has done- each religion is the sum of what people have done in its name. The Christian religion HAS been and still IS being used to justify horrible things, like the conquering of nations and the murder of millions who wanted only to defend their way of life and their land from invaders. How many innocent human beings were tortured and murdered for disagreeing with the Christian Church?

Nearly every organized religion claims theirs is the 'true God', and most condemn the souls of those who disagree. This is the trap that lies waiting, and catches most followers; if 'we' are the chosen ones and 'they' are the damned, then don't 'we' deserve a bigger slice of the pie? Wouldn't 'they' be better off if we took over their lives and forced our ways on them? This line of thinking leads to discrimination, nationalism, and environmental destruction. It's not explicit in religion, but implied, and it must be consciously avoided if we are to get along.

  For centuries, those who saw the Divine in Nature were persecuted by organized religion. Can you blame them for being a little leery of those who claim to be on both sides? The Christian religion has made it clear that the physical world is separate from the spiritual; the pleasures of Earth are  a temptation, a test which we must pass to earn our salvation. The ones they persecuted rejected that idea; they saw the Divine as existing here on Earth in all people and in all of Nature. You may claim to love me as much as the guy in the pew next to you, but  you believe that I will burn in Hell because I reject your dogma. How can you have any respect for me if your God hates me so much as to make me suffer eternally for seeing him in trees and rocks instead of in Heaven on some other plane of existence? Why would you try to save my life if you believe my soul is owned by the Devil?

  I used to think I was a Christian- I have recently discovered that I am a Pagan. I was not converted; I simply learned what it really means to be a Pagan, and realized that I have always been one. It does not mean what the Christian conquerors said to justify their acts of violence- it means little more than believing that everything we need to reach inner peace and oneness with the Universe is found in Nature. That's it- nothing more is required to be correctly called Pagan. Since most agnostic and atheist environmentalists could probably say the same, it means you too may be a Pagan! Since there are no rules in Paganism, except to respect and love Nature, you can still believe in Jesus or Buddha or whomever you like. It's all good, as long as you harm none and take no more than you need and thank the life force for what you take. This 'religion' is not only compatible with environmentalism, it is the Original Environmentalism. There is no mystery about why we want to preserve the Earth- we are the Earth and it is Divine and therefore beautiful and the beauty is what makes us peaceful and loving- it's simple.

Organized religion is a box. Get outside, and Blessed Be.

a liberal in redsville

just do it

I believe the 'consensus' to which Dave refers is not one of public belief- certainly the public believes it's all a bunch of hoowey. It is a strong consensus among experts- climatologists in particular, and physicists in general. The only doubting 'researchers' I have heard of are funded by those who profit from unhindered consumption of fossil fuels.

The papers you seek are everywhere; why do you ask someone to point to them? Simply go to the library and pick up the last few issues of the journal Science, or do a library keyword search on global temperatures. Even simpler, do a google search- many respected journals allow you to view at least an abstract without registering. Don't quit too soon- you will be swamped with papers covering every aspect of the question. The evidence of rapidly increasing temperatures is everywhere, from melting glaciers to invading species from warmer waters.

As for the effect of warming- can it possibly be good? Evidence is strong that previous warming trends (from natural causes) have devastated life on earth- we're talking extinction of 95% of species on earth. Maybe this one will be beneficial?

I must question your motive- are you just trying to raise doubt? Do you doubt that CO2 is a heat trapping gas? Do you question that CO2 levels have risen dramatically in the last 100 years? How can you doubt that these undisputed facts will lead to a warming of the average global temperature? The only question debated by real scientists is how much how soon. Perhaps you know of some physical or chemical reaction which will negate the effect of the increased CO2 absorption, which has been missed by thousands of climate experts?

How can you be qualified to make scientific judgements and yet expect scientists to make no predictions? What is science good for if it cannot make predictions based on trends in collected data? Scientists use computer models to extract verifiable information with incredible detail quite regularly, and without it, we would be reduced to biologists, catagorizing without understanding. Of course there are uncertainties, and varying results- if there were not, you should be suspicious. One reason for the difference is in just how to account for what humans will do in the future- will we continue to increase our CO2 production, or will we curtail it? How much? These are the big questions which account for much of the differences in the results of the predictions. You cannot discount the predictions because their end results differ- do the work, read the papers, give them some credit, then question the common conclusion- which is, we're in DEEP DOO-DOO.

a liberal in redsville

private ownership

While it is true that not much of Appalachia has been set aside for roadless status, and there are small towns dotting the entire map, there are still hundreds of square miles of (broken) wilderness that could easily be saved. The biggest problem here is that so much of the land is privately owned- landowners are frequently poor, so they sell their land rights to the paper mills or coal companies- these companies own more than the public does, and have the right to blow it up if they so choose. Bush has made it easier by handing down 'do not enforce' orders to the Corp of Engineers and making the rules into a joke.

But there is still a wealth of diversity to save here, and it could be done so easily- if only land owners and land destroyers could be convinced to preserve the land with tax breaks or government subsidies. Ironically, Bush just lowered the tax break for conservation status so it's hardly worth doing it.

Many groups are working to stop the destruction (see the Dogwood Alliance for one), but as long as private ownership gives the right to destroy the land, time is running out. These woods are special; the diversity puts northern forests to shame. The native peoples had no trouble living here- nut trees and wildlife abound. You could almost live on what you pick up as you walk through these forests.

The media could save the day here; images from helicopter flights show the extent of the damage, and should be telecasted. These guys are not fools; they hide their work by leaving a thin strip of trees beside the roads, so you drive by and never know its there. If we can't stop this, there's no hope for any place else.

a liberal in redsville

Not proud, but...

Ok, I'll admit I am not as well educated on the subject as I should be- there are many good comments here that would make anyone re-consider their position. This is good- I learn a lot on this site- it's why I come here.

But I may have been misunderstood; I do not advocate building more nukes, rather, in a moment of weakness, I considered compromise (yuk). Realisticly (OK, pessimisticly), renewables will not come fast enough in this economic and political climate to save our skins from an overheated planet, and 'voluntary efficiency measures' won't save a single species. I simply stated that if I CAN'T have clean, local energy and optimal efficiency, nuclear looks better than coal to me. Compromise is a choice between things you don't really want (John Kerry). Of course uranium is mined, and of course it makes miners sick- but how long does a coal miner live? Why couldn't the mining be done by machines instead of men (profit margins)? Do they remove entire mountaintops for a little uranium? I don't know, and it's not easy to find out. I did find out that purifying silicon (mined quartz) for solar panels releases dust that causes lung disease, and large quantities of strong acids are used to etch the silicon, and it takes from 1-4 years of operation to payback the energy cost of building a solar panel. Newer technologies may use Selenium and Cadmium Telluride (mined), and huge amounts of silver would be needed to satisfy a fraction of our current energy demand. Nothing is free- clearly we need a very careful study of ALL options and ALL their costs. I'm sure our Energy Department (Dick Cheney) is doing this, as we speak (ppffftt!).

As for the waste, no doubt, big problem. But at least the waste CAN be safely contained. The problem is in making sure it is done right. Air pollution has killed a whole lot more of the Earth than radioactive waste.

I claimed that solar and wind would never satisfy the energy this economy WANTS, not what people need. I think you and I would agree that what 'we' need is a small fraction of what 'we' want. Given the real opportunity to choose, I think anyone (not getting rich from dino-sludge) would pick clean, local energy sources- and we hardcores should continue to insist on it. Screw compromise.On Umbra on nuclear energy posted 4 years, 7 months ago 45 Responses

lesser of two evils

Totally agree about the 'real problem' and the 'real solutions'. As quoted above, Einstein knew this- our way of thinking must change. Our growth-reliant-consumer-based economy must also change. Unfortunately, this is not happening- in fact, with all the power to change locked-up in a government owned by the well-subsidized fossil fuel industry, it's not going to change in time to help. Clean energy is not going to grow fast enough in this economy, and sadly, the wind don't always blow and the sun don't always shine; these sources could not reasonably support the kind of energy consumption this economy wants.

Of course, the same is true about the terrorist threat- it's our way of thinking and our actions that perpetuate this problem. If we would just stop stealing the worlds resources for our 'blessed' nation and put an end to world hunger, few would see us as a threat, and security would be less of an issue.

Sure, nuclear is expensive, start-up costs are huge, but the issue is the cost per watt produced, and since these plants produce gigawatts for 30-50 years without releasing greenhouse gasses, they look a lot better than clearcut mountaintop-removal-dirty-air and hell-on-earth coal. I would also take nuclear before coal, but only if I can't have clean, local energy in an efficiency-driven economy.
On Umbra on nuclear energy posted 4 years, 7 months ago 45 Responses

say what?

Really? Because this is hardly news to most of us already paying attention, and will be brushed off by the majority of American consumers and their corporate sponsored congressmen like so much dandruff, as were other recent assessments of how far up the proverbial creek we have gone. I predict this won't make the evening news anywhere in redsville, and won't prompt any action by anyone with the power to change anything in the ever-expanding American Empire. But then, I'm an incurable optimist.

a liberal in redsville

wreck-creation-al vehicles

The perfect example of a firm belief that nature was put there for one reason only- to please man. Don't you just love that it is becoming one of America's favorite hobbies? Soon, all your neighbors will own one, and they won't let us scrawney tree-huggers get in the way. Respect for nature is a foreign concept to these folks. They will never get it.

a liberal in redsville

please do tell...

I can't wait to hear what we should say to these folks. I have come to the conclusion that anyone who'd drive 30 miles for a cup of coffee is not going to be influenced by anything I could say. People like this beleive that it is their right and well-deserved privilage to drive wherever, whenever, and however long they want to. And to buy the biggest, guzzling-est stinkiest SUV they can borrow money for. Furthermore, it is OUR duty, they think, to support our troops as they fight to control the oil that feeds their driving frenzy.

They have been told that global warming is a lie. They believe the war is 'liberation'. They think alternative energy is for pot-smoking hippies. The whole world exists to pleasure their every whim, and if you say different, you just hate America.

This is the big question- how can you get these people to change the way they think (or give a hoot) about their lifestyle and how it affects the world? What would you say?On Umbra on talking about environmentalism without being preachy posted 4 years, 8 months ago 8 Responses

optimism or excuses?

Sorry, Dave, I'm being a tad harsh. It's just that the 'right' (wing) uses those arguements to justify their refusal to do anything to help, and even try to discredit those who point to the problems. In fact, the ones who are pushing all that optimism the hardest are the very ones making a profit from the resource hogging and waste dumping that futher reduces our chances of healing the earth and supporting its population. If I heard the optimism coming from those who have the power and money to make the changes happen, and saw them backing-up their optimism with action, I might buy into it myself.

'Till then, I'll just lean on this 'alarm' button and take shots at high-flying optimists.

a liberal in redsville

alarms and extreems

In a world where the vast majority of people are unwilling to make any real sacrifice to save the plants, animals, or even their own grandchildren from overconsumption, overpopulation, and the poisoning of the earth, water, and air, we are indeed extreemists.

When the difference between the way we live now and the way we ought to live in order to stay in harmony with the earth is so drastic, and the path from here to there is so uncertain, shouldn't someone be setting off the alarm?

But the alarms are ignored and the extreemists are pushed far away. If the alarms get softer and the extreems come toward center, will the path become clearer, and harmony reached sooner?

a liberal in redsville

love your mother, damn-it!

It's human nature- a left-over from our animal beginnings. Ever watch young boys play? Do they build things, nurture nature, watch in awe as life unfolds? Not usually. They break off a big stick and beat something with it, until it's destroyed. And this is encouraged- 'boys will be boys', their mothers say, and fathers chuckle. "Hit it again, boy, it's not dead yet". This is the macho attitude, and the Republicans have adopted it as their motto- Democrats and Liberals are 'girlie men', remember? Enviro's and Progressives are 'commies', and most of my neighbors think we should be strung from the highest tree (before they hack it down and burn it on the spot).

I don't see the enlightenment of mankind coming any time soon to my neighborhood- most of them haven't given up that boyhood urge to destroy something, and many of them think that's what makes them the masters of the world- "it's my right to destroy it- why? Because I can- and you can't stop me."

But I must agree that the enlightenment is our only hope of saving our planet. I'm still working on just how to force love and respect of nature down their gaping consumer holes.

a liberal in redsville

nice problem- what solution?

Excellent description of the problem- I wish it could be made into a documentary and played for the general American audience- it is clearly stated, consistent with facts, and realistic in it's assessment. It is a compelling plea for attention to the world's biggest problems and it places the blame precisely where it belongs. Of course, it would need lots of gorey pictures and a sexy narrator to get the ratings.

However, I fail to see any real solution offered- (ok, I dont' have one either), but Steffen pretends to have it. Unfortunately, 'it' is just the same old dream that technology, innovation, or just really good luck will provide us with the magic bullet- the something for (almost) nothing that makes our damaged Earth capable of sustaining over 6 billion people at a wonderfully comfortable prosperity. Yes, he's right, that would do it. I'm going home right now and get started on that. If I could just get this horse inside this matchbox ...

Unfortunately, my understanding of the laws of physics and nature does not allow me to put much faith in science to pull us out of this one. I could more easily believe that the people of the world will suddenly become enlightened and see that all they really need for happiness is a warm spot, a full belly, and birdsong. Then I could believe that the world's people might be willing and able to change enough to let Earth recover from the rape and slaughter that man has committed in the name of prosperity.

a liberal in redsville

ants can do it- but can we?

WOW- did you just say 'we do not need to consume resources'? I am trying to imagine a world where billions of people live without consuming any resources. That WOULD be COOL. I suppose they would just 'borrow' them, and then put them back exactly as they found them... ok, but during the time they are using them (for houses, for solar panels and computers, and for their body weight), they are not available for other living beings to use them. While I agree that the physical matter that our 'stuff' requires to be 'stuff' does not disappear- it is extracted, seperated, transformed, and retained for a finite time, but it is unlikely to be returned to the place it came from in the same condition as when it was taken. So it is not 'consumed' in the sense that it is 'gone', but it is withheld and transformed into waste material. It is impossible for us to live without creating 'waste' from borrowed 'resources'. Even if everything was completely recycled and kept clean and safe, the process would at least require considerable energy, energy which (if from the sun) would not go into plants or would come from stored energy (a consumable resource). I cannot believe the sun's energy can supply everything we need unless all we do is grow food, mine platinum, and live in dirt houses (not that I wouldn't do that if it would let us keep the wild spaces that are not already destroyed).

  Forgive me if I distrust the U.S. Forest Service to truthfully report on the status of forests in America. I have no doubt that 10 million acres of pine plantations were added- I also know that millions of acres of native hardwood forests were and will continue to be cleared to produce paper for flushing away to landfills. These folks allow clear-cutting and mountain-top removal, a process which doesn't just borrow the resources, it kills the land. Nothing can grow on the barren rocky acid slopes they leave. That land is gone- don't count it in the Earth's capacity to support life.

  I wish I could share your optimistic views- I see no indicatation that even a minority of Americans are even slightly inclined to make the kind of drastic changes that would be needed to 'close the loop' on resource use. Since it will not happen any time soon, your dream of a zero-drain humanity on Earth is not likely to come true before the Earth is too dead to support those ants whose resource consumption you compare to that of humans.

a liberal in redsville

not possible

That would be totally cool. But of course, people living in an arid climate would have a very hard time growing, mining, producing everything they needed (just to survive) in their own backyard. Finding enough water would itself be unlikely in many places. While it may not be 'stealing', I think you missed jdhlax's point- it is not possible for all people living on Earth to do so sustainably. Diverting water, trucking food, and running power lines out to otherwise uninhabitable places is unsustainable. But there are not enough 'garden of Eden' spots on Earth for all of us to live there, so some of that unsustainable support is needed, as long as we have too many people for the garden. I think a careful analysis will prove that it is NOT possible for this many people to live sustainably on our little planet, no matter how 'innovative' our future society may be. Humans require resources and produce waste- no innovation can ever change that.

a liberal in redsville

nail-on-the-head boring

Waves might be perfect for those near the sea; for those who ain't, solar wins. Your solar panels provide your power- who needs a power grid? Decentralized power gets us much closer to the ultimate goal, to actually saving the Titanic from sinking. If I can charge my electric car with my solar panels, do I really need that job in the city? Centralized power plants are targets for terrorists, accidents waiting to happen. Going local is one of the few pathways that could lead to the self-sufficient, sustainable society we all (all 50 of us?) want. Of course we need to become more efficient- so our solar panels provide all we need- efficiency is the first step.

Problem is, we are all trapped in a society that requires us to suck up resources just to survive. We need jobs, so we need cars. If we have a low income, we can't afford a new car, much less a hybrid, so we drive a cheap gas guzzler. We can't afford solar panels, so we pay for coal-burning. We can't afford the 'Energy Star' product, so we buy the cheaper old technology that burns more coal. To accomplish our long term goals (save the earth?), we need to re-engineer our society to be more self-sufficient, less reliant on the current money-making-dirty-scam that is subsidized by our tax dollars and forced on us by law. Take the sewer system- we mix fresh pure water with pollutants, germs, and the nutrients that should be returned to the earth- then expend energy to 'clean' it, dump the polluted water, and bury the nutrients in a landfill. How do we avoid that? It's mandated by law- and destroying the earth. This shows how far we have to go to 'save the earth'. How's that working out? About as well as people want it to. Most want to guzzle gas- look at SUV sales. Most want new developments- more places to shop, cheaper stuff from overseas, subsidized gas prices- yes, even if it means war.

I for one am not bored with comments that recognize the problem as it really is- its the perception- shared by most Americans- that everything is fine, and with a few tweeks here and there, it will be fine forever. Yah, right. Wake up, America. The American Dream is the problem- when will it change?

a liberal in redsville

ecowality

the earth belongs to all of us;

the wealthy and the poor;

those of us with power

should even out the score.

Else 'ignorance and greed'

our tombstone will read.

a liberal in redsville

four steps backward

Hey, let's not forget that many of us voted for Kerry because allowing Bush to get re-elected is equivalent to taking 4 steps backward in our common goals for progressive change; yes, we'd all like to support the purest roots of change, but this time, there was too much to lose. Yes, Kerry was a second (or third) choice, but he was the only one who stood a chance of beating the Regressive Party (GOP).

When the forest is burning, you have to stop planting and grab a bucket.

a liberal in redsville

... and justice for oil

Incredible. I'd love to comment on this, but my jaw is still on the floor...

If this is not illegal, then I'm not living in a democracy, public lands are not owned by the public, and the people have no say and no power.

Oh, yah...  nevermind.

a liberal in redsville

here comes the swat team...

This guy is saying what most of us are thinking but are too scared (or smart?) to say. I fully agree with his analysis of the situation; the world is a long way down the path to self-destruction and refuses to change direction or even slow down. He correctly assesses human nature- drastic change only occurs when there is no other choice. The entire system IS controlled by people for whom a quick profit is the major (or the only) concern. While I wish I could believe that there is time to save the world by 'reframing' our case, I have only seen evidence to the contrary. Drastic, radical action is the only hope.

But there are some obvious problems with his prescription; people would suffer from drastic, forced change; people would give in to violence, and as always, the poor would suffer first and most from any drastic change. His entire plan relies on vast numbers of people taking part in the 'revolution', but good luck recruiting in my red state. The other side would fight back to keep things as they are; the government would label any suspected participant a terrorist and make an example of the person, pass new laws, and enforce them with a vengence.

However, I for one would love to see huge protests that draw media attention to the message- and the way to draw attention is to interrupt the normal flow of dirty goods to blissful consumers.

But, dude, you lose me with the forced sterilization of the population... I'm thinkin' that could be bad for survival of our species (which would probably be good for the planet but bad for the collective conscience).

a liberal in redsville

nurse a hybrid

I've heard you have to drive fuel-conscious-ly to get their milage- if you are a lead-foot, you won't get it. Think of your commute as an effortless walk, not a mad rush. Practice meditation (yes, while you drive).

a liberal in redsville

Nightmare on green street

That story would scare the ** out of anybody! Might we ask what 'state' this occurred in? And shouldn't this be on the national news? This is still a free country, isn't it? But then again, they did start a war over black gold- why wouldn't they kill us here at home?

It boggles the mind that anyone could really believe their message- nature doesn't need protecting. Shall we start a list of all the observable adverse effects man has already had on nature? Have they forgotten DDT, the ozone hole, species decline, deforestation, mercury in fish, etc., etc.

 I say it again, people believe this message because they want to- it goes down easy, and leaves you feeling good. Don't worry, be greedy, dump that crap, and don't look back. It's so easy to believe the future will be grand- that scientists will fix all our problems (without contradicting our faith, of course), and nature will heal herself, no matter what we do to her. But then again, most folks have no idea what a catalyst is, and what a little bit can do to a balanced system.

To most, the word 'sustainable' is a threat to profit margins, and therefore a threat to their job. If your business is unsustainable, and your profit comes at high environmental cost, shouldn't it go away? How palatable is that message? A hard sell at best. I hope your story doesn't stop anybody from pursuing their green dreams. Surely that's not what your trying to do...?

a liberal in redsville

top story tonight: logging banned!

I like the way this guy thinks. Can we get him to run for president here? But maybe we should ask how much of the 'legal' logging was approved by his administration.

I wish the world would wake up to what has happened in the Philippines (and much of Africa, and lots of other places). This is a perfect example of the end result of a profit-hungry reckless resource grab (see NAFTA, G.W.B.).

This story and this year's choice for the Nobel Peace Prize should be all over the news- the problem and the answer. I wonder what the FOX spin would be on these stories? Maybe "Loggers Blamed for Rain" and "Tree-hugger Steals Peace Prize".

a liberal in redsville

faith-healing the Earth?

Amazing, isn't it? Like some frightening science-fiction novel, Americans live every day of their lives totally reliant on high-technology and science- from their alarm clocks and microwave ovens to their heat-pumps and cell-phones. The general populace could not survive in a low-tech world, yet at the same time, they refuse to believe science that contradicts the bible or science that would compell them to change the way they live.

But it gets worse- the people making decisions about what science will be funded and what will be suppressed subscribe to the same policy of deliberate ignorance. What will become of science if it is forced to ignore fact that contradicts faith? How useful can this 'faith-based' science be?

And how useful could environmentalism be without science? Sure, your heart could be in the right place, but if your facts are wrong, your actions are ineffective. The American Indians knew that they had to protect their environment- you took only what you needed, and left something in return, to maintain the balance. They learned this by observing the results of their actions on their environment. Today, the effect of our actions (say, buying a Hummer) are completely hidden; we did not clear the mountain and mine the metals, we did not burn tons of coal to manufacture the vehicle, and the connection between the pollution it makes and our health is hardly obvious. We are insulated from the consequences of our consumption, so it is impossible to know what is the right and wrong thing to do without the help of science. By not funding science that looks for the clean, green way to live, by ignoring the connections between our action and our environment, we are sealing our fate. But then, half of us are eagerly awaiting the end of time, when they will be saved (faith-based science has proven this, I'm sure).

a liberal in redsville

help us hollywood!

Here's an idea on how to get more attention and perhaps convey the (somewhat convoluted) aurgument that the environment is tied to our quality of life: animated films. Very popular right now, and viewed not just by kids, but by GOP moms! Remember 'Bambi'- made us all cry. That time it was the hunter- scratch that- make it the developer. The big machines come in, big noise, pushing down all the trees, the cute woodpecker's home falls to the ground, all the animals run, the fire burns into the night as the animals regroup and try to decide what to do now. They get pushed into a tiny space, near homes, dogs barking, dirt bikes, highways, oh man, this could jerk tears from the harshest economist! A good writer could tie this into the lives of people nearby, show how their lives changed as a result of the loss of all that beauty.

Many of our groups are good at raising money- some of our biggest supporters are Hollywood folks- if we define a cause, work with them and get the facts right and then add the 'human-animal' touch, we can get any message across. If the kids get it, maybe they can explain it to their GOP moms. If it's done well, it could even raise money for the cause while raising awareness. Animated films would duck the association with the 'Hollywood liberal' and 'elitist' labels. Of course, this kind of film has already been made, but Americans never get tired of good stuff. Buying air time is expensive, but this could generate money!

a liberal in redsville

hydrogen is a distraction

I hope you all know how they plan to produce the hydrogen- it takes tremendous energy to separate the hydrogen atom from parent molecules. The current plan is to use (yes, you guessed it), oil. Or, maybe nuclear. Not only will there be pollution created (somewhere else) in the production of hydrogen, but as pointed out earlier, the storage and transport of the hydrogen will not be cheap. Its common knowledge that when Bush made hydrogen his vision for the future, he cut off funding to automakers gearing up to mass produce hybrid cars (which would have easily cut fuel consumption by new cars in half) to fund his vision for the future (of his oil producing friends, that is).

Did you see the article about the French car that runs on compressed air- you charge up the tank at night (sure, this takes energy, but it could be produced with wind or solar) and then you get something like 60 miles at 60mph on the charged up tank. It emitts a cool breeze as it runs. But of course, the car and it's occupant would soon be nick-named the 'sissy-mobile' around he-ar.

a liberal in redsville

media and government not trustworthy

It scares me how people seem to believe anything they hear on TV or read in the paper as absolute truth. When the government tells them the war is necessary, they trust and support the government. When the 5 o'clock news tells them the air is cleaner today than 4 years ago, they believe it. When a bunch of paid republicans say John Kerry is a coward, they take it as God's word. This is why I don't doubt the election was won by Bush- he and his campaign made no effort to use facts- the lies were much more effective than facts, and people in my neck of the woods ate it up. The lies were more fun to believe than the ugly truth.  I counted bumper stickers, I noticed yard signs, I saw the look people gave my car and my stickers. In fact, I was surprised to see how well Kerry did in my state- perhaps people were so confident they didn't bother to vote. Let's face it, the presidential election has become a popularity contest. Remember high school elections? People vote for the candidate they think will win, so they can be on the winning team. Someone asked me "do you really think Kerry can win?", as if that were the only reason to vote for the guy- never mind the issues.

 I remember the days when people refused to trust the government- we questioned authority. How did that morph into the current demand for conformity and blind patriotism? We should reserve our faith for our religion, and be skeptical of our government. If your leader is chosen by God, do you question his word? In fact, do we even need science if all decisions are made on faith?

No, we lost the election. We lost to the popularity of a 'regular guy' image (anti-intellectualism), the 'no taxes' dream (selfish individualism) and the 'war on terror'  (christian-condoned racism). I wish I could believe the election was stolen- but no, what was stolen was public access to the facts, and what was lost was our ability to make informed decisions. The truth is the enemy of this administration, and the media is witholding the truth.

a liberal in redsville

religious conservatives missing the boat

I cannot understand the current desire for sexual repression- OK, in earlier days, it was a real threat to society- unwanted pregnancies and spreading disease, in the absence of effective birth control and antibiotics, it could not have been good for the health of the township. But this is another age, and please remember, we are human beings, flawed and vulnerable to temptations. Most of us believe we are merely animals that developed a conscience. Don't forget, the Puritan repression of natural desires resulted in very nasty behavoir (burn the witch!) and is surely related to America's love for violence and our current obsession with sex (forbidden fruit is more appealing).

Whether it is the greatest sin or not is another argument, but right-wing Christians seem to be forgetting the more easily hidden and more dangerous sin of GREED. This is the real enemy today- it is the reason that sex is used to sell everthing from a car to a stick of gum- because it makes money. It is the reason that pollution is allowed in spite of the harm it does, it is the reason that war is chosen, it is the reason that our democracy is broken. The GOP is vulnerable on this point, because while they have pandered to the right by adopting their policies on sexual repression and abortion, they have been busily giving away our resouces and our health to help their corporate friends. If we attack the right-wing on this issue, the true color of their morality may show like green leaves turning to red.

a liberal in redsville

our liberal ties

This is indeed a big problem, one that deserves the thoughtful discussion enabled by our friends at Grist.

For what it's worth, we can see how our political champions came to be liberal democrats- we have been pushed away by the GOP, because our agenda threatens theirs. The idea that a free market should prevail without government regulations just doesn't jive with our ideas. They claim that a corporation is a person, with all the rights that citizens have- the right to privacy, the right to do what they want with their property, to be assumed innocent until proven guilty- in effect, the right to pollute if they want to. We enviro's would regulate them, monitor them, and punish them for bad behavoir, and that's just bad for the bottom line. Look at the ratings given by LCV and Sierra Club to republican law-makers vs those of democrats- it is clear who has adopted our cause and who has rejected it.

So, here comes the 'liberal' baggage- suddenly, we are godless gay-loving baby killers, who want to tax and spend so that shiftless lazy types can get a free-ride on good people's hard-earned money, right? We are over-educated and over-payed and out of touch with the real world and real people, right?

But wait a minute- none of that stuff about liberals is true, that's just what the GOP has convinced people is true- liberals have allowed themselves to be defined by conservatives, and the picture they paint is no more true than it is flattering. Being associated with a liberal candidate has only recently become a handicap- perhaps what we should be doing is re-defining the liberal agenda for the general public as the one with a conscience, the party who really cares about people and wants to help them reach their potential, for the good of all. None of us thinks abortion is a good thing, none of us thinks religion is a bad thing, and nobody wants to pay higher taxes to encourage laziness. OK, we might seem to be over-educated to some, and that may give us an open mind about alternative lifestyles, but does that make education a bad thing? Don't they still want their children to get an education, get a good job, and earn a good salary?

I'm sorry to say it, but I believe much (but not all) of the right-wing agenda is no more than thinly veiled racism, homophobia, arrogance, and greed. No self-respecting liberal can bend that far to the right. Saving the environment is not about owls or whales, its about the future of humanity, its about saving something healthy, clean, and beautiful for our children, for everyone's children. The other side believes that they are more deserving, having been chosen by God, and wants to exlude much of the world, who are not so 'special', from getting a peice of their pie. The environmental movement has been shoved onto the left side, and we seem to be more comfortable here anyway.

a liberal in redsville