Comments blacksheep has made

hellooo batteries

i always feel like such a bad environmentalist when i fess up to this, but I am not in favor of electric vehicles....

this is a massive toxic waste problem in waiting...eventually, the toxic substances in all these huge batteries will need to be disposed of....

i could also state my opinion about hydrogen vehicles (which is a little more optimistic), but I don't want to distract from the real solutions: density where it counts, getting people to live closer to their jobs via good planning, planning for pedestrian and bicycle commuting, amazing mass transit... a world where the personal automobile is pretty much a thing of the past, except for emergency vehicles, rental vehicles, cooperatively owned vehicles - none of which need to be used for that daily commute or to go buy groceries. we need to focus not on automobile solutions but on planning and transportation solutions....On Electric-car visionary would overhaul the way we get around posted 1 year, 3 months ago 12 Responses

Viva High Energy Prices!

Personally, I am both unhappy and glad that gas prices are going up. On the one hand, this takes directly from my pocketbook, my ability to travel, etc. and it will most certainly hurt the poor and middle class more than it hurts those with more income (don't all things hurt the poor before the rich feel the pinch? money insulates you somewhat from whatever is going on in the world...). On the other hand, I am happy because high energy costs almost certainly mean investments in energy efficiency and a movement toward the more compact, public transit-based, renewable energy society many of us enviros long for. Interestingly, it seems that high prices are in part the result of increased demand around the world (developing economies growing stronger) and in part the result of other factors that still have nothing to do with the true costs of their environmental impact, their long-term availability and increasingly higher costs of extraction, or the social injustices they cause  (i.e. the geographical separation of rich people from poor people through exurban development eventually led to the movement of jobs away from cities to places where the poor and lower middle class could not easily get to them - of course, a list of social injustices caused by cheap oil could be very long, as it is the poor in less developed countries who often live with the consequences of poor environmental regulation).

Unfortunately, the environment vs the poor debate isn't going to go away any time soon, and the reason is simple. Having a healthy planet means consuming less, which means (given no change in population) having less in terms of goods, mobility, etc.. Will the rich of the world make sure it is they, and not the poor, who have less? Will the rich of the world protect the poor during the inevitably difficult transition to an economy that is light on the planet? The American middle class is, in comparitive terms, quite wealthy - will they, even as they feel the pinch in their own wallets, feel that it is their duty to promote equity and help bear some of the brunt of what the truly poor will suffer? And yet, the economic status and political clout of the poor in the world is rising, so perhaps they will, in their vast numbers, be able to force these concessions from the rich, more or less at gunpoint?

To end on a happier note, I believe a blend of forward-thinking government action and cultural changes can help relieve the situation. What if our government decided to relieve some of the pressure by investing in better train, bus and bicycle systems - TODAY? What if States marked established cities and villages for growth, connected these with transit, and created policies to encourage desirable density (depending on city size) and discourage suburban sprawl? What if people began to see the merits of living closer to resources, having relationships with neighbors and doing more for themselves? All of these things are possible and more - and it is expensive energy that will generate this creative burst... necessity is the mother of invention. hopefully, then, my great grandchildren will be able to live in a world that uses a moderate amount of energy so efficiently that energy ends up being not so expensive after all....

Of course all change means there will be winners and losers, and people with means will position themselves as well as they can to not be the losers. Therefore, it will be important to do a better job than we have in the past of helping the poor and increasing equity. It is also important for energy prices to increase somewhat gradually, so as to give us time to adjust, begin creating our new society and of course to avoid economic and humanitarian meltdown.

all in all, I still say Viva High Energy Prices! On Protests erupt worldwide over fuel prices posted 1 year, 5 months ago 25 Responses

accountant farmers

perhaps accountants could provide farm labor after the tax season On To create a truly sustainable food system, we'll have to confront the farm-labor crisis posted 1 year, 6 months ago 14 Responses

possibly got what it takes

sure, she's a politician... but all the same, she hasn't said anything that really scares the crap out of me.

while she may not be the best of all the candidates on the environment (particularly compared with Edwards), she's not bad... i don't agree with her on everything she has said, but overall she seems to know her stuff, to be willing to consider many options and get rid of those that don't meet particular criteria, and to be ready to work with others to find solutions for our environmental problems. rationality in decision making is a nice thing....

we can't expect that a president alone can create the transition to a more sustainable society that we seek... but, the right president at the right time can ride (and enhance) the wave and help enable big changes to happen faster. she seems both aware of and receptive to changing attitudes about the environment...

i'm not sure if i'm going with edwards or clinton in the primaries, but i'll tell you this: if she shows up on the final ballot, I'll vote for her without hesitation...
On An interview with Hillary Clinton about her presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years, 3 months ago 32 Responses

sauce vs. food reiterated

I agree with greenlagirl completely. If food satisfaction is a problem, look further than the sauce you are using.... a good meal tastes good without any of the sauces, seasonings, etc, and then your sauces and seasonings move the meal into the territory of really good. Definately examine the composition and quality of your base ingredients... pastas/rices, proteins, and veggies... don't go overboard with expensive stuff, but one really nice ingredient can make a meal, and you can pick more average stuff to compliment that one thing.

On a separate note, i recently discovered that this single-sauce issue is not just a vegetarian problem. i was talking to a friend and her husband not long ago, and they both expressed exasperation with their diet, consisting basically of spagetti with red sauce (with meat) - every night!!! sometimes they used chicken instead, with a tomato-only red sauce...

If you are in this rut, good cookbooks definately help. also, starting a food coop (a small group of people who take turns cooking and delivering dinners to each other - or, with neighbors, this could be simplified by eliminating the delivery)is a good way to get exposed to different things, and it also motivates you on your cooking night to try something new and spectacular!On Seriously, isn't it just gross? posted 2 years, 9 months ago 44 Responses

the school/job disconnect

blacksheep1:

I know others in Apple's position - even those who have master's degrees! I think part of the problem may be somewhat of a disconnect between school and the professional world. In school (or at least the ones I've been to), there is an abundance of knowledge seeking but not as much specific skill building or preparation for specific careers. So you end up with a very expensive brain but not a lot of immediately marketable skills (can I put, "give me a problem, and I'll solve it!" on my resume?)...maybe that makes you more promotable once you get in the door, but it works against landing that first job. An interdisciplinary understanding of environmental issues is important in a general educational sense, but not specializing is a mistake if your goal is to enter the job market.

I've known a lot of people entering environmental science and environmental policy programs without a specific idea of what they want to do with the degree - they just know they want to do some good, to help protect the environment, and they are generally interested in that discipline (science or policy, sometimes something slightly more specific, but still without a specific career in mind, like environmental justice or wetlands). It is easy (especially in a 2 year master's program) to "waste" a lot of classes figuring out what you are most interested in, leaving your specialty area (assuming you have one) rather thin.

I think environmental schools could do a lot more to package specific degrees tailored for specific types of jobs. In law school, all students spend the first year getting the same fundamentals, but then they need to choose an area and specialize...the next two years are spent in that specialty. The few electives you get are way at the end of the degree. It seems that other professional degrees share this (engineering, architecture, landscape architecture, medicine...), both at the undergrad and graduate levels.  

Of course, many schools walk a fine line. They don't want to just give you a bunch of skills ("you can get that at community college"): they want to help you build well-educated and comprehensive views, to learn how to research and write and think, problem solve, etc. But, from my limited experience, schools could do a little more through the inherent structure of their programs to help students from the classroom to the job market...

blacksheep2 adds: that's all true.

Also, when people get master's degrees, they are unwilling/unable to get crappy jobs to build their careers.

Students don't spend enough time figuring out what they enjoy and how they can contribute before returning to school for a graduate degree. Most graduate programs function on the supposition that student's are capable, at this advanced level, of formulating their own academic program. Having the choice of many courses which satisfy some predetermined set of criteria does not necessarily also satisfy future job requirements. There is a fundamental tradeoff between acquiring narrow and focused skills or broad-based general skills. Most students are attracted to many different topics and have a difficult time, without proper guidance, selecting appropriate coursework to prepare for their future career(s). Without adequate training, they are ill-prepared for their future, regardless of how many environemtnal jobs are seemingly available. On I thought the green job market was hot! posted 2 years, 9 months ago 31 Responses