Comments rickeym has made

What About the Soil?

I'd be more sanguine about all this if you could reassure me about the health of the soil. Sounds like we'd be working the soil to death ... but I'm not a farmer, so I don't know if my fears are valid.

Also, monoculture is monoculture, which is not a good long-range strategy for the planet in general. We've already lost so much biodiversity owing to monocultural agribusiness, suburban and exurban development, roads, etc. We're just going to displace more critters just so we can keep driving to the megamall.

Call me a romantic, but it seems to me that we need to rethink our living arrangements at the same time as we move toward energy independence and sustainability. Start with a LOT less driving (doubling of MPG is great, but far from the answer), much more efficient housing (the biggest user of energy of all), and something along the lines of cluster villages (dense, walkable to essential services and cultural - in the larger sense -- venues) connected by rail, more localization in general. Just for starters. Not my original ideas, cf. Richard Register and others.

My point is, aren't industrial solutions to industrial problems misguided? Just wondering.On Where will biofuels and biomass feedstocks come from? posted 1 year, 10 months ago 16 Responses

The Land of Crunchy Capitalists?

My overall impression of the fair was that being green is a new consumer lifestyle. And in my view, that's not necessarily a good thing.

A few of the featured speakers made impassioned pleas regarding an end to our consumer-oriented ways. Meanwhile, out in the booths, retailers were flogging every conceivable product -- most of which, while organic, fair trade, sustainable, and otherwise full of righteousness, were simply consumer substitutes, still manufactured and packaged and shipped, etc.

Aside from the oxymoronic notion of the "green consumer," the event itself has now outgrown the venue. The press of humanity and the cacophony of the current venue is absolutely brutalizing. It was hard to enjoy the speakers when they were being drowned out by the Live Music Stage. What the festival needs is to take over a university campus for the weekend, where they would have access to a real auditorium (for the main speakers), lecture halls for the other sessions, and so forth. Also, this is a networking venue, yet it's almost impossible to carry on a conversation with someone.

Suffice to say, I will not attend another Green Festival as it is currently constituted.

One particularly gaff at this year's gathering was to assign the only session devoted to people of color in the green movement to an auxiliary tent outside of the convention center itself. This wasn't even the back of the bus; it was like hanging on to the rear bumber! I'm embarrassed for the movement.

I don't know what to make of the crunchy observations. Perhaps because I'm a native San Franciscan (living in exile currently), but that sort of thing doesn't register with me as much as the sheer capitalist energy of the scene. You could smell the testosterone. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for local businesses supplying us with life's necessities. But a lot of the energy seems to be leaning toward larger scale effort: Become the next Body Shop. Then sell it for bazillions. Whatever.

To end on a more positive note, What I like best about the Green Festival is the pep rally aspect. Korten was great, Suzuki was great, numerous other speakers had great things to say. You leave all pumped up to do more good work, and you know you're not alone.On A report posted 3 years ago 5 Responses

Travel Is Broadening -- and Polluting

All forms of travel (except in your head!) use some energy. But there's no question that flying is by far the worst, in terms of petroleum used up, pollution and human health, impact on the upper atmosphere, energy used per person-mile, etc.

For all these reasons, I've not flown in over 18 months. In fact, I've only flown for a pleasure trip once in the last five years.

Not that I'm bucking for sainthood here. My other reason for not flying is the dehumanizing surrender of civil liberties one encounters in any U.S. airport. The minute you enter an airport (and increasingly a bus terminal or train station), you have left what's left of the United States and entered a full-fledged police state. I guess you can say I'm also protesting our government as well as making a stand for the environment.

My dear brother-in-law works for an airline, and I know that my reluctance to fly will impact his life if his airline goes under -- much as the travel agents in the Guardian article worry about their jobs if there is a mass backlash against flying. But people are irrepressible, and if we can't fly, there will be more trains and boats (I hope!), and more jobs in those industries.

Finally, remember that it's not just the casual vacation flyer who needs to be targeted. Most flying is for business. As we work toward more local, sustainable economies, there should be less reason for all this far-flung business travel. All of our efforts are connected.On Umbra on alternatives to flying posted 3 years, 8 months ago 2 Responses

The War Against the Farmers

I just want to add a comment about the relatively low cost of conventional food. For nearly a century, there has been a concerted effort to eliminate the farmer from the whole food equation. Now by "farmer" I mean a person who cares for and husbands the soil and nurtures the animals they raise -- the kind of thing we picture when we think of organic farmers. This is in contrast to the absentee businessman who owns an agribusiness concern and hires people to manage the growing. The power brokers want the true farmers, who actually care about the food they grow and the people they feed, to disappear.

Thus a major role of subsidies has been to reward the argibusiness concerns, while ignoring the small farmers, and keeping food prices artificially low so as to drive the small farmer under.

And it's working. Thousands of small farmers each year give it up. Not a few of them commit suicide, a fact that's been fairly well hidden. In so-called developing countries, similar schemes are driving farmers off the land. The suicide rate in India, for instance, is epidemic.

We cannot merely clamor for cheaper organics. We need to support our local organic farmers, paying them a fair price for their efforts.

Agribusiness is starting to take over the organics business, ironically driving the small farmers who brought us the organic revival out of business. This is not a good thing, as it will mean huge monocrops and long shipping distances -- just like with conventional crops. And it does nothing to build community.

Food is cheap enough, probably too cheap, given how many farmers can't even break even at today's selling prices. (And yes, I'm oversimplifying for the sake of brevity; many small farmers are in debt owing to mechanization, over-reliance on fertilizers, etc. -- but that story is ... a whole other, if related, story!)

As for the inability of poor people to afford organics: To change that, we need to work on the social justice and job creation side of things to see to it that no one is ever too poor again.On Seriously, now -- why aren't organics getting affordable? posted 4 years, 3 months ago 18 Responses

How Else To Create A New Culture Than To Live It?

Fact: we are approaching a major social catastrophe known as peak oil. With oil no longer cheap and plentiful, Americans will finally be forced to confront the realities of physical, planetary existence -- and it won't be pretty.

As with most human tragedy, there are two primary responses: Hope and despair. If you think that it's too late, that the world has already gone on overload and that environmental and social catastrophe is inevitable no matter what we do, then I suppose one can feel justified in continuing one's current behavior until forced by circumstances to do otherwise. Better to party hearty than to wear a hair-shirt, right?

If, however, one thinks that there's still a chance to pull our tofu out of the fire, then we face another set of choices around the question: How should we act?

While I will agree that we will not see a time when everyone becomes spiritually enlightened (for reasons that are beyond this discussion), each transition in human consciousness only needs a critical mass of people who embrace the emerging culture to bring along the rest of the population. (Yeah, yeah, hundredth money, blah, blah. What I'm talking about is more subtle than that.) And the leaders of the emerging culture must do more than just critique the behavior of others. They need to lead by example, creating a living vision of how the next level of consciousness looks so that the unimaginative sheep can have pointed out to them just what they should do. It's a fact of human psychology: People are more moved by example than by criticism.

This is a major point of Monbiot's screed. He criticizes -- and rightly, I think, having also seen the hypocrisy first hand -- those high profile environmentalists who do, in fact, act hypocritically. Where he goes too far is to imply that all environmental leaders are hypocrites. Okay, he was pissed and over-reached. But are we wrong to criticize one another? Frankly, I find it demoralizing when my own colleagues don't get that they have to walk the talk. It undermines all that the rest of us are doing.

Although we can be constrained by cultural conventions, not to mention physical reality, there have always been people in history who somehow found a way to move beyond that. And so it is today. To fall back on the argument that humans are fallible, we're all doing the best we can, etc. is a cop out. There are numerous people, all over the planet, who are defying the norms of their culture and trying to make this a better world in every sphere. And they are doing it in spite of cultural norms and the enmity of the top levels of the hierarchy.

Many of these people are humble -- courageous, but humble. They are working in out-of-the-way places, far from the superstar spotlight. That is to be expected. Cultural change typically comes from the fringe and works its way in.

In contrast, our political leaders dither. Can we ask our leaders to save us from ourselves, as Monbiot suggests? I don't think so. Political leaders are in fact cultural followers. The political realm is always the last to confirm what the people already know. By the time politicians enact the laws we need, they probably won't be needed. This is why I think we waste so much energy when we beseech politicians -- whether through polite petition or by rioting in the streets -- to do this and that. We disempower ourselves by confirming their power over us.

Anyway, are we such children that we have to wait for some troglodyte politician to give us permission to behave sanely? If we cannot feel free enough to create a new culture without any else's permission, then we are lost.

To create a new culture, we must begin to live in the new culture. So it is not a matter of doing the best we can in the current culture. We must literally leave that culture behind, free ourselves mentally, first, then start to move away physically, whatever that might mean for you or me.

In the end, we are left with the need to not only create living examples, but to bring that vision to a wider audience. With the Merchants of Death controlling so much of our media, that's quite a challenge. But if we do finally get the spotlight on us, we had better be worthy of it. We had better have the outline of a new culture to showcase.

To the inevitable question: How am I doing? The answer is: Not nearly as good as I'd like. But I'm going to do everything in my power to see that I do even more.On There are worse things than hypocrisy posted 4 years, 4 months ago 8 Responses

Prius Is Very Reliable

Biodiversivist asked about maintenance on a Prius.

According to Consumer Reports car owner surveys, the Prius is one of the most reliable of all cars on the road. I would imagine that Toyota, whose car line is mostly in the "much better than average" range, has gone to extra lengths to insure that something new like the Prius gets a lot of extra QC attention.

As for maintenance, the gas engine in the Prius is a standard gas engine and needs the usual maintenance -- just follow the owners manual for tuneups, oil changes, and so on. And of course there's non-engine maintenance like brakes and tires, etc.

The electrical engine should need no particular maintenance -- electric motors can be very reliable if well made -- and the batteries are under warranty for 100,000 miles. Replacement costs something like $900 now for the whole battery set, but by the time you've driven 100,000 miles, the price should be substantially less.

Overall I would predict that it might cost slightly more to own a hybrid -- you have TWO engines, plus the coupling mechanism, after all -- but the difference would be far less than the overall savings on gas. Plus, it's good for Mother Earth! (As much as a car can be, to be sure.)

Check out the Prius website.
http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/2005/prius/index.html

Also, go to some of the Prius forums. Here's one.
http://www.priusonline.com/

Overall I wouldn't shy away from a Prius over maintenance issues. I just wish it came in an all-wheel-drive version, the better to cope with winters in Maine. (Or, I wish Subaru would build a hybrid ;-)On Are there problems with the Prius? posted 4 years, 5 months ago 4 Responses