Comments Steve Erickson has made

Its DooWop, 50 years later . . .

On From Pirates to Parody posted 1 year, 9 months ago 1 Response

Lots of critters get drunk

I've seen lots of birds fighting over fermented berries. Elephants also get drunk. This is nothing new, though its odd that they died of alcohol poisoning - if that is the cause of death. I think I'd want tot see the results of a serous autopsy before making any conclusions.
And why should bare-skinned primates have all the fun?

Steve E. Whidbey Environmental Action Network

These techniques are old

And in use in various farming systems around the world. Nothing new there to anyone versed in sustainable ag systems, this just proposes to adapt them to industrial farming. Of course, Khosla not being a farmer or knowledgeable doesn't know how to put them together or use them appropriately (i.e. so they work). So don't be too hard on him.

One system he left out is intercropping and its variants, such as alley cropping.  This is really just polyculture that is more spatially explicit. For example, different crops grown in alternating rows or blocks. In the biofuel fantasy, the perennial cellulose crop would be grown in alternating rows or blocks with annual soil miners (corn, soy). There are lots of variants and higher yields per unit area for the soil miners are typical due to improved soil structure, organic matter, nutrients, etc., as well as microclimate amelioration. If the system is more structurally diverse, then microclimate improvement is probably more pronounced. For example, in the PNW of the US, strips of  N-fixing Red Alder trees being managed by coppicing with pasture or annual crops in-between.

The Prairie Dog system actually has a lot of potential, but a system of using chickens to harvest the crop might be more realistic. Add a mixmaster to the fuel tube on the biodiesel tractor and you've got a sustainable system!  Sorry, all you vegans and vegetarians out there. I just couldn't resist.

Steve E. Whidbey Environmental Action Network

Charity Navigator is for the Big Boys

Be aware that Charity Navigator doesn't review organizations with budgets under 1/2 $million. So if you limit yourself to only those orgs that are passed by them, you're omitting all of the small and local groups. Of course, in the greater scheme of things, these are the groups that probably have the largest impact on land use and that are most starved for funding, because most environmental funding goes to the Inside-the-Beltway DC crowd. The small local groups have the lowest overhead. They just lurch from crisis-to-crisis. That's what made the "Death of Environmentalism" PR campaign to sell what's-their-faces book so funny. The local grassroots groups are as effective as ever, and as starved for resources as ever. Think globablly, act locally.On Umbra on green donations posted 1 year, 10 months ago 21 Responses

Endangered Species

US Fish and Wildlife Service contiually pleads that it lacks the funding necessary to list all of the plant and animal species that qualify for protection under the endangered species act. Yet, the agency never asks for sufficient funding to take care of the backlog. Would you provide the needed funding and appoint an agency director who will be a strong advocate for protection of our biological heritage?

Steve E.

Boondoggles & Trashouts

Don't kid yourself about the Corp. The Society of Wetland Scientists, a professional scientific society that rarely takes a postition on political issues, has isued this alert:

SWS Public Policy Alert

One mission of SWS is to actively promote the inclusion of sound science in wetland policy and stewardship. To this end, I wish to bring to your attention a proposed Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) project that will drain approximately 26,300 acres of forested wetlands and farmed hydric soils, and could impact 200,000 acres of wetlands.  The purpose of the project is to increase agriculture on lands that routinely flood (80% of projected benefits) and protect roads and other structures (20% of projected benefits). The project includes a reforestation component.

The ACOE will release its final Environmental Impact Statement recommending construction of the Yazoo Pumps around November 9. Within 25 days of release, the Department of the Interior must decide whether to refer the project to the Council on Environmental Quality. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency may initiate a process to veto the project outright under the Clean Water Act.

Critical deadlines for commenting on the project are approaching, the earliest of which falls on November 19th. The following resources are available to you for learning more about this proposal, and communicating your opinion to the Department of Interior, EPA and the ACOE.

• You can join a letter from wetland scientists who oppose the project. This must be done by November 19th. http://www.americanrivers.org/yazoo

• You can read the EPA's perspective on the project. http://www.americanrivers.org/yazoo

• You can download the ACOE feasibility report and read the ACOE perspective on the project. The ACOE will accept public comments for at least 30 days after releasing its final report, which is imminent. http://www.mvk.usace.army.mil/offices/pp/projects/ybr/ind ...

J. Patrick Megonigal, Ph.D.
SWS President

Steve E.

Mayor governs city, not region

JB: "So, the "Mayor of Seattle" getting a lot of press for climate change is like an alderman from Rhode Island getting praise for his stance on foreign policy."
-------------------------
The "Mayor of Seattle" is Mayor of Seattle, not the entire Puget Sound region. What would you suggest he do about the Island County Commissioners failure to do anything about greenhouse gas emissions? He has no jurisdiction there!
How about you, JB? What have you done about muscular dystrophy in Fargo, North Dakota?
At least stay vaguely on topic.

Steve E.

Not exactly free

This recovered energy is not free, non-polluting, carbon-free, etc. If it becomes part of the output of a consuming entity (i.e. factory with a high unused process heat), than the recovered energy ultimately embodies part of the pollution costs of the entity. The gross amount of pollution generated by the entity is still the same, but the useful output (widgets, energy, etc.) per unit of pollution decreases. This is a good thing, but we should be precise in our language. For example, if a widget factory is using energy from coal but the waste process heat is being recovered, its still polluting. Its just not polluting as much relative to its beneficial outputs. Assuming the widgets it makes are beneficial.

Steve E.

Have you got stock . .

. . . in one of the companies pushing this? You repeat this paragraph in almost every post you make:

"I suggest a low cost method called "biosequestration"-seed an extensively tested GMO into the ocean to remove tremendous quantities of carbon from the air, and put it back into the ground where it came from."

It contains numerous assumptions, including:

1. GMOs can be extensively tested to indicate what they'll do when released into the open environment, and that the effects of such release can be accurately predicted and are tolerable.

2. A "magic" GMO organism released into the ocean actually can and in practice will take up "tremendous quantities" of atmospheric carbon.

3. That carbon will then actually be "biosequestered" and not simply cycle back into the atmosphere.

4. If the biosequestered carbon remains in the marine environment, its impacts are tolerable.

5. And that this will somehow end up with the carbon being "put it back into the ground where it came from."

New Trolls

Two new trolls! That's some good bait you used, Dave.

Steve E.

When the chips are down . . . Litigation

I've got to say that the most effective tool we've had at the local level (Island County, Washington) has consistently been litigation. I fully understand that having good people in office and maintaining pressure on them might after a decade or two start to reform the incredibly pro-development political, social, economic, and legal structures  that are in place, but in the meantime there's nothing that been as effective as simply suing the bastards and winning. And with a good win/loss record, the mere unspoken threat of litigation beomes a fairly potent brake on a lot of the more outrageous trashouts before they get off the drawing board.  
Of course, I'm talking about the local and sub-regional level, which is where the cement, asphalt, suburban lawns, and pesticides hit the prairie, wetland, forest, and farmland. Saving your backyard is nowhere near as romantic as being a policy wonk working on "the big picture." But its also where most of the degradation occurs. It also gets virtually no support from the "larger" environmental community (i.e. foundations, national organizations, etc.). Sometimes the media is favorable, sometimes its hostile.
Glenn: I'm curious how much/if the organizer training teaches you how to deal with being personally hated by a large proportion of the community you live in, or having the organs of government organize mass meetings that are thinly disguised attempts to incite violence  against you, and, of course, that ever necessary skill of maintaining personal security (e.g. eyes in the back of your head)? Like it or not, these are necessary skills. Or is the training ulitmately going to simply produce the next generation of isolated DC policy wonks?

Steve E.

Reality

You'd best read up on the relevant laws. And if your postings read like they're written by an early adolescent male who starts repeating neo-con talking points by rote sometimes, guess how people will respond to you?

Steve E.

The Time Has Come

 if the space program hasn't advanced several generations beyond its current level, where are all these people going to go?
------------
We have existing technology that is more than adequate to bomb the earth with condoms. We don't need more research to do this - only the will. Until environmentalists realize that the true path is only known by dollowing public policy pollsters dedicated to educating foundations about why they are the ones who should get the big bucks, we will continue to see the earth suffer the death of the thousand blogs. One blog at a time may not be injurious - but a thousand?!?!? How much longer can the Earth endure? Surely it is time to embark on a new vessel to carry us in a different direction on our journey. Etc. & Etc.

Steve E.

Electric Heat is inefficient . . .

So Smaug, what you should have gotten was a gas tankless heater. These are quite efficient at converting energy into hot water.

Steve E.

Too many strawmen

If I correctly understand the PETA philosophy, "exploitation" of animals is immoral. This would seem to include:

*Using animals for draft power in farming (those immoral Amish and numerous 3rd world peoples!)
*Keeping bees for honey or raising bees for the explicit purpose of pollinating crops
*In any way consciously manipulating vegetation or land use so as to create conditions favorable for animals that provide beneficial services to humans. This includes consciously growing or creating the conditions to grow plants that harbor (e.g.) wild pollinating insects orinsects that predate other insects that attack crop plants.

This is an interesting philosphical position to some, but seems to me to be so divorced from the real word that I've come to the conclusion that the people holding this position are also divorced from the real world. By this I mean that they have no conception about how farming systems of any sort actually function. Use of manure is only the tiniest tip of the iceberg of the way in which animals participate and are used in farming systems. An example: in central Washington a non-native leaf roller is a major pest in apple orchids, for which farmers use gobs of expensive pesticides. A native leaf roller occurs on the native wild rose. There is a native parasite that preys on these insects. When these wild roses are near and around the orchards, the parasite of the native leaf rollers suppress the non-native pestiferous leaf rollers. A farmer that plants the wild rose will likely reduce or eliminate major pesticide use as well as provide habitat for numerous other organisms. But under PETA's philosphical stance, the farmer would be committing a sin. She is "exploiting" the native leaf rollers and their parasites, as well as killing the non-native leaf roller. I find this world view bizarre. Putting it bluntly, just wearing polyester or pesticide soaked cotton is not sustainable, and as an environmentalist concerned about the future (including humans), my goal is sustainability.

Steve E.

Calling Dave Roberts

Dave, I believe in light moderation and the free exchange of ideas, but this discussion has been hijacked by trolls. I'd really like to see a discussion of various conceptions and visions of sustainable agriculture. Can we have such without it being hijacked?

Steve E.

Is this an animal rights blog?

"I challenge all of you who would have "meat in moderation" to chase down your food and kill it with your bare hands. "

1. WTF does this have to do with the environmental impacts of eating or raising meat? (Also applies to numerous long tendentious postings by VasuMurti and other fanatic veg*ns).

2. Sarcastic response a:
   

3. Sarcastic response b:
Better give up using that flat rock to sharpen your nails when you go huntng - that's technology!

4. Sarcastic response c:
Better give up clothes, including footwear - that's technology!

5. Sarcastic response d:
Better give up birth control - that's technology! And that'll really help the environment.

Steve E.

Apocalypse now No! Apocalypse then.

"By the year 2100, humankind will need to produce and consume roughly 60 terawatts of energy if every human on earth is to reach the level of prosperity enjoyed today by the world's wealthiest one billion people. Even if economies were to become much more efficient, the total terawatts needed to bring all of humankind out of poverty would still need to roughly double by 2050 and triple by century's end."

-----------------------
With the above statement, these policy wonks fall into the trap almost every economist falls into. They fail to consider all the impacts. "Level of prosperity"  is shorthand for "consumption of materials and (mostly natural) services." The posited levels of consumption will run into limiting factors other than energy long before energy consumption becomes the limiting factor.

Steve E.

Sustainable farming requires animals

"Vegan means eating no animal-derived food;"

*So, you only eat vegetative matter from wind pollinated plants grown in moncultures?

"eating animal products is hugely resource intensive and polluting."

* Factory farming is not the only farming system possible. I think I'll get one of the chickens out of the freezer. A friend of ours decided it was time to go for some of the older hens. We caught 'em, killed 'em, butchered 'em, put them in the freezer, and now we're eating them. We did drive 10 miles to his place and used plastic bags to put the carcasses in for freezing. This is still probably less resource intensive than buying a factory chicken to eat and probably less than eating food of any sort trucked several thousand miles.

Biodiverse:
I'm very curious what the impact on carbon footprints would be if first world suburban households on their lawns raised smaller livestock (poultry, rabbits, sheep, pigs, goats, etc.), without external inputs. Those suburban lawns are a lot of potential pasture and if they're in the first world there is lots of additional food around for the scarfing to feeds the animals. Consider a few free range chickens. Figure one egg every other day per bird during the warm season. Plus the carcasses. No trucking. I've known people in the city who have done this and its really not very difficult. The individual impact would probably be minor, but in the aggregate it would be large. Especially if the critters replace weed-and-feed and lawnmowers.

I'll repeat what I've been saying in previous posts. Factory farming of animals is quite a recent development and is hardly the only agricultural model. I'm not talking about factory farming. I don't believe its possible to have a sustainable farming system without animals.

Steve E.

Polar Bear Population estimates

Re: Piolar Bear population increase:
The citation in the last posting ("[36]") links to the Humane Society web page. I was unable to find this factoid at all, let alone a further citation to, e.g., a population survey or published estimate.

And regarding the National Center for Policy Analysis:
This from its website:

"The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector. Topics include reforms in health care, taxes, Social Security, welfare, criminal justice, education and environmental regulation."

Burnett is listed as one of its "experts," but no qualifications are given. However: http://www.ncpa.org/abo/staff/sburnett.html tells us:
-------
H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow
H. Sterling Burnett , Ph.D. is a Senior Fellow for the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). While Burnett works on a number of issues, he specializes in issues involving environmental policy.

He has held various positions in professional and public policy organizations, including serving as a member of the new Environment and Natural Resources Task Force in the Texas Comptroller's e-Texas commission (2000).

President (2005), Board of Directors (present), Dallas Woods and Water Conservation Club.

Advisor, American Legislative Exchange Council Energy, Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture Task Force, 1996 - Present.

Senior Fellow, Texas Public Policy Foundation (2005 - Present).

Contributing Editor, Environment & Climate News (2005 - Present).

Academic Advisor, Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow (2005 - Present).

Brand Visiting Chair of Free Enterprise and Public Policy at Howard Payne University , 1998.

PERC Fellow, Political Economy Research Center , 1995.

Research Assistant, Social Philosophy and Policy Center , 1991 - 1992.

Environmental Research Associate, Competitive Enterprise Institute, 1990.

Research Associate, Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, 1987.

Policy issues spokesman on nationally syndicated radio and television talk shows.

His articles and opinion pieces have been published in Ethics, Environmental Ethics, International Studies in Philosophy, The World and I, USA Today, Los Angeles Daily News, The Washington Times, Washington Post, The Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, Rocky Mountain News, Miami Herald, Las Vegas Review-Journal, Detroit News, The Seattle Times and Human Events.

Burnett received his P.h.D. in 2001 from Bowling Green State University. His doctoral dissertation was "Ecosystemic Goods: The Pros and Cons of a Property Rights Approach."
------------

So it appears that Burnett's entire career has been devoted studying and advocating a particular ideological position that is presumed to overlay and ultimately control all other factors.

So whether there actually is a source for the oft repeated and claim low population estimates for Polar Bear pre-1990's, its a pretty good bet that Burnett didn't produce it. He jsut doesn't sound like the kind of guy who would be counting tiny white blobs from a freezing small airplane, or performing statistical analysis of chnages in Iunit Polar Bear hunt success rates, or nay of the other myriad methods that might be used to derive a population estimate.

Note that Mitchell K. Taylor does appear to be a serious Ursus researcher, with credited publications in peer reviewed journals. However, he is not the person credited in the Wikipedia article with the earlier population estimate(s).  

Steve E.

Animals are essential to sustainable agriculture

The problem I have with PETA's position is that it isn't based on any sort of wholistic analysis of what the future is apt to be like (assuming we want it to be sustainable), but on a narrow moral position that doesn't account for ecological realities and makes sense only within a very short temporal framework. Its simply not possible to have a sustainable agricultural system (not to be confused with the current industrial mess that supplies most of the food) without having animals in it. And if people have animals, they will exploit them for meat and other foodstuffs. Its our evolutionary history.

Think practically. When petro fuel makes long distance transportation of most goods, including food, prohibitively expensive, will preparation of land for planting be done by:
a. Biodiesel or vegetable oil fueled machinery.
b. Horses, oxen, or other draft animals.
c. Biological "no-till" methods, such as "chicken tractors."

All of these methods require additional land in addition that actually used for growing the vegetable crop.

The first must have additional land left fallow to recover from the biomass removal invovled in producing the oil seed for fuel. It provides a motive source. It saves labor, but requires a large industrial infrastructure to support.

The second and third options require additional land for support of the animals, either directly (pasture and hay for the horses/oxen) or indirectly (land not used for growing the crop that the chickens are rotated onto). Like the first option, these both save labor. But in addition, these options can enhance the fertility of the farmland so its not "mined" of nutrients and retains tilth. And they provide something else that our bodies have evolved to take advantage of: protein and nutrients that have been concentrated by other animals. They are also self-replicating; industrial infrastructure isn't needed to create and maintain horses and chickens. And a dead horse or chicken can be recycled much more easily than a dead tractor. Think compost. Think dinner. Think food for the dog that keeps the coyotes away from the chickens.

I think that any discussion that doesn't base its view on a possible future society that is sutainable in the most basic sense is shortsighted and not very useful, given the crisis that our species is causing in the biosphere (and not just from climate change). And ultra-vegetarianism is not systemically sustainable.

Steve E.

Voluntary actions can be an excuse

I've also seen reliance on voluntary actions used as an excuse to not have regulatory mandates. We're in court because our county is relying on unworkable "voluntary" protection of wetlands rather than mandatory protections. Some of the County's voluntary measures that relieve property owners of mandated protection are ludicrous (i.e being registered in a "backyard wildlife sanctuary program").
I'm sure there are other examples of this phenomenon. Imagine the politicos: "sales of CFLs are up 400%, so we don't need to address climate change."
This is the flip downside of voluntary action - it may be used by the politicos as an excuse not to take the hard regulatory steps.

Steve E.

CO2 Fuel of the Future

As usual Tex, you're jumping to conclusions that fit your agenda. Read the article you quoted. Most basically, its a long long way from here  - early promising research - to there - a mass scale method for "fixing" CO2 from burning fossil fuels in a relatively energy efficient full cycle process that also ties up the CO2 (i.e. keeps it out of the atmosphere) for very long periods of time (>1000s of years).
By the way, are you able to charge more for your services by calling them "memetics" than the more common terms "public relations" or "propaganda?"

Steve E.

Ask 'Em!

In the interests of journalism I've just sent a simple message to:
info@tennesseepolicy.org

Could you please tell me what your data sources were and the
methodology used for determining Al Gore's consumption of
electricity?
Thank you,

Perhaps others would also like to ask TP.org about this?

Steve E.

KISS

Think of it this way:
You've got 10 seconds in an elevator to insult some earth destroying moron.

Two rules:
Keep It Simple Stupid!
and
Say it with a smile on your face

Child hating SUV suckers
Selfish me-firster
Property wrongster
Greedy future masher
Poison spewing fools
Nature killers
Future destroyers
Bed pissing corporationsOn The history of tree-hugging, and the future of name-calling posted 3 years, 1 month ago 9 Responses

What about plants?

I have seen the bunny huggers - excuse me, "animal rights"  fanatics -  be perfectly willing to doom rare plants by using disinformation campaigns and the full run of legal and political strategies to fight lethal control of introduced animal, when lethal mthods are the only real practical method. Calling that position "conservation" is ludicrous.

If biodiversity conservation means conserving all life forms at all scales, and the processes that create and sustain that diversity, then the bunny huggers' position is antithetical to conservation. Should an introduced mountain goat in Olympic National Park have greater "rights" than an endemic plant species? Mountain goats are in no danger of extinction and were not native to the area (i.e. deliberately introduced by humans within the last century), whereas the plants are endemic (grow nowhere else in the world and have a very restricted range) and are threatened.

The same situation arises where deer are seriously altering the species composition and structure of forest systems. In the worldview of the ""animal individualist" is there an ethical or moral difference between people simply shooting the deer and re-introducing predators to do the killing? Both are deliberate conscious actions intended to achieve results that require killing individual animals.

Steve Erickson