Comments djnoll has made
At last, a sign...
I have been working on my doctorate, primarily in the area of civic participation and sustainable government. I have been looking in all my research for a sign that globalization had finally run its course. This article may be that sign. It is apparent that the rising price of fuel was destined to have an impact on goods distribution. We are beginning to see that now. What we need now is a move within the US, by people like those who read Grist, to move towards more sustainable, localized production. There is a video, THE TAKE, that tells of how local citizens in Latin America seized plants that had been shut down, retooled them, and started new businesses to sustain their communities. It is time for US workers to consider forming alliances with community based groups to do much the same thing, in all areas from manufacturing to agriculture to retail. And to do it in a sustainable manner. If uneducated workers in Latin America can rebuild their local economies, there is absolutely no reason now for US workers to fail to do the same. This article does not say it, but if we do not move to do this now, then what has happened so far in our economy will be only the tip of the iceberg. I can guarantee it!On High fuel prices causing globalization to lose momentum posted 1 year, 3 months ago 8 Responses
And the Children shall lead us...
I am working in the area of trying to get people to face up to the fact that if we are to have a sustainable future, we need to educate our children - the GenXers and GenYers - NOW. While I applaud the interest of the college level students, the educational system needs to take this farther.
On my website - http://www.standanddeliveramerica.com - I have posted under the Articles heading two curricula that I have devised that could be implemented in any school system that would incorporate sustainability into the curriculum as part of the entire learning process, as well as through a junior college or online university program. Education is the key to our futures, and we need to start teaching our children now about how to create an energy independent, sustainable future before we completely run out of time. I have also posted a blog under Man and Nature as the first in a series addressing the affects of global warming and our need to reconnect with nature at any age as a way of finding the answers we seek.
I applaud the universities mentioned in the article for leading the way in making these programs available. Even Northern Arizona University with its Ponderosa Project and the ASU Sustainability School and Centr are working here in Arizona to create awareness and knowledge in this field, and the fact that our young people are so interested gives me some hope for the future.On Alternative School posted 2 years, 8 months ago 1 Response
You are Partly Right and Partly Wrong
This past Sunday I had a discussion with my father, a retired engineer who looks at the Earth as a geophysical machine that runs on energy generated at its core. He, like the author of this piece, believes that global warming is just a naturally occuring event. He is right as far as he goes, and that is where he and Al Gore meet. What until our discussion he had refused to address is how a greenhouse works, but from a gardener's perspective the understanding is somewhat different, and hence the phrase "greenhouse effect"
In a natural cycle the heat from the Earth's core does generate a significant percentage of the Earth's warmth and climate, ultimately dissipating int o the atmoshere. CO2 does naturally occur in our atmosphere. These two facts go back millions of year and are not in dispute. This is where the human element enters the picture in the last 100 years, because we have affected the ability of the Earth's heat generation from dissipating into space. Like a greenhouse that traps heat inside to warm plants and help them grow in an artificially created climate, the excessive CO2 and other greenhouse gases generated by man have created the walls of the "greenhouse" that holds in the Earth's life giving warmth.
Our problem is though that unlike a greenhouse which can be manually opened and closed to moderate the effects of the trapped heat, we have created a shell that is encasing the Earth in such a way that the heat is trapped. It is then magnified by the solar heat that would normally reach us as well. In essence, you create a super-heater of the Earth's surface and its atmosphere. The Earth, in its natural cycle, cannot then release the heat it generates the way it should and you get global warming.
So the argument is partly right and partly wrong, but it is only when you understand how a greenhouse works do you see in terms that most non-scientific types can understand. For that matter, even engineers when they understand how a greenhouse works begin to change their opinions as well. My father may never be the same, now that he understands that he and Al Gore are not arguing apples and oranges, only seeds and fruit.On 'Global warming is part of a natural cycle'--This idea is one short step above appealing to magic posted 2 years, 11 months ago 39 Responses
Reason tempered with passion and commitment
As I read this posting and the ones that followed, I had to smile. Yes, reasoned, empirical logic can often make a strong case for social change. Many examples of this are included in this discussion, but in citing such examples as the women's movement or economic growth, there was also passion for the causes and commitment to the purpose that created the social change. Yes, there was reasoned arguments for these changes - they made sense to the majority of the population, but it was the passion and commitment to see the battle through to its conclusion that made the social framework alter itself to accommodate the changes. Without passion, any argument can be made for social change, but it will fall on deaf ears because no one will want to hear the argument. For example, the arguments about climate change have been made by scientists for over 25 years, and yet no one paid attention to the experts, who were reasoned and balanced in their arguments. However, when Al Gore makes a movie based on his passionate belief that this is important, even though he is not a scientist or any kind of expert, people listen and they begin to act.
I am a strong believer in logic and reason. I am a student (at age 54 so you understand I have life experience to support me) in Public Policy, and I have a life long interest in history. So, I can safely say, that reason and logic and calm debate have done very little to change anything. However, take the same facts and put passion and commitment behind them, talk with conviction and facts, and change can occur. Part of the problem that the environmental movement has had over the years is that they have failed to understand that rhetoric can only take you so far, unless you can touch the hearts, as well as the minds of society, you cannot create change. I know that the people who work for the various environmental groups are passionate about their efforts and work tirelessly to try to accomplish things, but they need to come together, pool their arguments and then with commitment and passion, talk to the hearts of American citizens, not just the heads. Then you may actually see the changes begin to happen.On What kind of rhetoric creates social change? posted 3 years ago 29 Responses
Response to the Poll Question
While the answer is quite simply yes, they should, the reason is perhaps more involved than just being more receptive to nature because of the ability to care for their families.
I have recently been doing a great deal of research on the question of oil depletion, climate change, and agriculture. The three are inextricably linked, and unless the question of how to preserve agriculture in a natural, organic state can be answered, now and quickly, the other two may be moot points. There is currently a movement to relocalize not ony politics, but agricultural production so that communities once again have locally produced food available to them. This is partly because of the need for healthier food, but also because of the need for a secure national food supply. With a living wage that is above the poverty line, which no bill in Congress is setting, a more significant amount of money could be put by the average family into the producing of food for themselves, as well as paying for the locally produced food which may be more expensive than the industrially produced food.
Further, by encouraging the family to grow part of their own food, like the Victory Gardens of WWII, they can offset some of the other higher priced foods that they could buy from local sources. Since most families in America are two income families, there is nothing wrong with having the children be responsible for this garden. Children who have worked in community gardens around this nation have been less likely to get into trouble than other children, so why not create co-operative neighborhood gardens where children can work together under the guidance of parents to create rather than destroy thier lives, and share in the responsiblity of helping to feed thier families.
A basic living wage will help cover expenses, but only a healthy agricultural community that is based on organic, living principles on a national scale will help to feed this nation the way it should be fed. A healthy agricultural community, whether in Los Angeles or rural Iowa, can help to address issues of cleaner air, water resource conservation, and oil dependency by limited transportation to market of production. When you take the costs of excess water usage and transportation out of the food production equation as practiced by industrial agriculture, you reduce the cost of locally produced food by nearly half. On that basis alone, a living wage can help a family pay for food locally produced.
So, yes, a living wage should be part of the argument, because with it the people can afford to feed their families, but not just because they are more receptive to nature, but because coupled with a movement to localize food production, they can afford to eat locally and better. On Eric Schlosser on America's food industry and his delicious new film posted 3 years ago 22 Responses
Response to the Poll Question
While the answer is quite simply yes, they should, the reason is perhaps more involved than just being more receptive to nature because of the ability to care for their families.
I have recently been doing a great deal of research on the question of oil depletion, climate change, and agriculture. The three are inextricably linked, and unless the question of how to preserve agriculture in a natural, organic state can be answered, now and quickly, the other two may be moot points. There is currently a movement to relocalize not ony politics, but agricultural production so that communities once again have locally produced food available to them. This is partly because of the need for healthier food, but also because of the need for a secure national food supply. With a living wage that is above the poverty line, which no bill in Congress is setting, a more significant amount of money could be put by the average family into the producing of food for themselves, as well as paying for the locally produced food which may be more expensive than the industrially produced food.
Further, by encouraging the family to grow part of their own food, like the Victory Gardens of WWII, they can offset some of the other higher priced foods that they could buy from local sources. Since most families in America are two income families, there is nothing wrong with having the children be responsible for this garden. Children who have worked in community gardens around this nation have been less likely to get into trouble than other children, so why not create co-operative neighborhood gardens where children can work together under the guidance of parents to create rather than destroy thier lives, and share in the responsiblity of helping to feed thier families.
A basic living wage will help cover expenses, but only a healthy agricultural community that is based on organic, living principles on a national scale will help to feed this nation the way it should be fed. A healthy agricultural community, whether in Los Angeles or rural Iowa, can help to address issues of cleaner air, water resource conservation, and oil dependency by limited transportation to market of production. When you take the costs of excess water usage and transportation out of the food production equation as practiced by industrial agriculture, you reduce the cost of locally produced food by nearly half. On that basis alone, a living wage can help a family pay for food locally produced.
So, yes, a living wage should be part of the argument, because with it the people can afford to feed their families, but not just because they are more receptive to nature, but because coupled with a movement to localize food production, they can afford to eat locally and better. On A former McDonald's cook explains his return to the family farm posted 3 years ago 22 Responses
Sobering Truth for Baby Boomers
Mr. Bliss's article, Fry Away Home, is not only addressing the problem of eating healthier and living healthier lifestyles, he also ends it with the comment "listen to your gut." It has become of growing interest to many experts in sociology as well as ecology that people are yearning for not just healthier food, but a better quality of life than that which is pursued today.
I do not have a large garden or land on which to grow much food, but I know that when I am working with the soil or watching a plant grow or, yes, chasing my dogs away from the broccoli and carrots, that I feel more alive inside. Many people I know have felt this way, and it is something that has healed many children with problems of self-esteem and poverty related issues. Community gardens have been known to heal communities and stop many of the social ills that crop up when we stop growing living things. (no pun intended.)
Mr. Bliss returned to the land not just because of the fond memories of his childhood, but because he understands that we are connected to this Earth and when we treat it in balance, we can not only live well, we are sustainable. We need to move from this life of fast food, fast jobs, and fast cars before we destroy this world and its future completely.
When the department head for the ag department at a local college tells me that he does not teach anything about growing food or soil or animal husbandry, but teaches only about agribusiness marketing because that is where the fast, easy money is for students, you know you have a problem. This instructor told me that young people were not interested in growing anything only simple, easy ways to have it all now, so why should he bother with the basics of agriculture. He went on to say that with the industrial and chemical components of agriculture today, they would be better off studying biotechnolgy and chemistry if they wanted to produce food! With that kind of attitude from the department head, it is no wonder that this school, in the heart of farm country, is not turning out farmers and ranchers who understand business.
Our souls, if I may digress, need connection, and Mr. Bliss realized that and connected. I have never lived on a farm in my life, but I have always felt that connection. It used to drive my family crazy, with my mother often commenting that I was a genetic throwback. I don't think so, but I have always had a closer tie with the animals in my life, with nature, and with the land than my upbringing would suggest. I have always understood the Amish way of life better than the modern day world, and I have always understood that without the land, we will die out as a race and as a planet. Our souls are connected. If you do not believe it, watch a child's face at the zoo in a large metropolitan area. Children know that we are connected, and petting zoos are popular for a reason.
So for my baby boomer generation cohorts, it is time to lead the way back to the land. Our parents or grandparents understood the lessons we have forgotten, and now we need to relearn those lessons for the sake of our children and their children. Follow Mr. Bliss to the land, and we might all find what it is we are searching for in all the wrong places.On A former McDonald's cook explains his return to the family farm posted 3 years ago 22 Responses
Sobering Truth for Baby Boomers
Mr. Bliss's article, Fry Away Home, is not only addressing the problem of eating healthier and living healthier lifestyles, he also ends it with the comment "listen to your gut." It has become of growing interest to many experts in sociology as well as ecology that people are yearning for not just healthier food, but a better quality of life than that which is pursued today.
I do not have a large garden or land on which to grow much food, but I know that when I am working with the soil or watching a plant grow or, yes, chasing my dogs away from the broccoli and carrots, that I feel more alive inside. Many people I know have felt this way, and it is something that has healed many children with problems of self-esteem and poverty related issues. Community gardens have been known to heal communities and stop many of the social ills that crop up when we stop growing living things. (no pun intended.)
Mr. Bliss returned to the land not just because of the fond memories of his childhood, but because he understands that we are connected to this Earth and when we treat it in balance, we can not only live well, we are sustainable. We need to move from this life of fast food, fast jobs, and fast cars before we destroy this world and its future completely.
When the department head for the ag department at a local college tells me that he does not teach anything about growing food or soil or animal husbandry, but teaches only about agribusiness marketing because that is where the fast, easy money is for students, you know you have a problem. This instructor told me that young people were not interested in growing anything only simple, easy ways to have it all now, so why should he bother with the basics of agriculture. He went on to say that with the industrial and chemical components of agriculture today, they would be better off studying biotechnolgy and chemistry if they wanted to produce food! With that kind of attitude from the department head, it is no wonder that this school, in the heart of farm country, is not turning out farmers and ranchers who understand business.
Our souls, if I may digress, need connection, and Mr. Bliss realized that and connected. I have never lived on a farm in my life, but I have always felt that connection. It used to drive my family crazy, with my mother often commenting that I was a genetic throwback. I don't think so, but I have always had a closer tie with the animals in my life, with nature, and with the land than my upbringing would suggest. I have always understood the Amish way of life better than the modern day world, and I have always understood that without the land, we will die out as a race and as a planet. Our souls are connected. If you do not believe it, watch a child's face at the zoo in a large metropolitan area. Children know that we are connected, and petting zoos are popular for a reason.
So for my baby boomer generation cohorts, it is time to lead the way back to the land. Our parents or grandparents understood the lessons we have forgotten, and now we need to relearn those lessons for the sake of our children and their children. Follow Mr. Bliss to the land, and we might all find what it is we are searching for in all the wrong places.On Eric Schlosser on America's food industry and his delicious new film posted 3 years ago 22 Responses
Long Day's Journey Into Night
I have long held the belief that mankind was adversely affecting their chances of having a healthy, productive lifestyle for the furture generations. Mr.Kunstler has provided the information that everyone needs to understand the extent of the problem, not just the current political "hot potato". I am beginning to realize that it will take an educated public and people who are willing to risk a great deal to push communities into taking action that might fly in the face of political folly. The need for more communities to say "No" to developers of housing developments, and to agrabusinesses offering the moon and delivering mud. I live in an area of Arizona that is currently under attack by housing developers who are offering riduculous prices for farm land, making huge proifts, and encouraging city and county officials to believe that commutes of 70 to 100 miles is prefectly acceptable for future residents so that no land is set aside in county development planning for the next 10 years for industrial or agricultural growth. I am trying to work to encourage local residents to refuse to sell farm land to developers, but rather to turn it from cotton and hay to other agricultural products that can be grown organically to renew the land, and open up the local markets for their products. I would also like to get people to demand that new housing be built with greywater systems, personal wind or solar power systems with grid tie-in as the back-up, and the use of alternative building materials such as strawbale to reduce heating and cooling requirements.
The reason I am trying to do this? I beleive that if small communities such as those in my county start setting a line that will not be crossed, start setting living examples of what can be done, and insist that the developers meet the standards set by the communities residents rather than setting their own rules which are forced on residents, we can maybe begin to make a shift towards the sanity that Washington has thrown out the window. If small communities concentrate on the development of economic bases that meet the needs of the communities, such as "green" industries that provide jobs close by, agricultural development that is more organic and healthy, and central retail areas that use alternative building and energy resources,then these communities can establish viable economic models that can be used to sustain arguments in legislative hearings to change rules and policies.
I agree with Mr. Kunstler that the affects of our dependence on oil will begin to be felt within the next three years. Not only will the oil related collapse be prolonged, but coupled with the financial disaster looming with the withdrawl of "baby boomer" investments from the financial markets within the next 12 years, the collapse of our economy and the world's economy will lead to a depression unlike anything we have seen in history. Mr. Kunstler presents a very pessimistic picture of the next 10 or more years, and unfortunately, he is probably right. We may not be able to stave off this decline, but if we work at creating some regional models now, we may be able to speed up the recovery. It will not be a paradise, but it can be a healthier, more sane way of living that will benefit everyone.
I have also read with interest several postings by JohnMcC. This gentleman has not only presented some very technical information, but also information that makes me wonder if he is perhaps more in touch with the political decisionmakers than most of us. He has expressed concerns that many people here in Arizona are being forced to look at as we see our population exploding with the influx of California investment money and retirees. I would hope that his information is being used productively to create solutions for the area in which he lives and to help in the desinging of legislation for his commuity that could become part of the national discussion by setting working viable solutions.
Good luck to us all if we do not heed the words of the "Cassandras" as one person posted. In mythology, Cassandra was cursed not with false prophecy, but with the gift of true prophecy which no one would believe. If Mr. Kunstler is a "Cassandra" then maybe we need to pay closer attention and start changing today, because he is speaking the truth. On An interview with doomsaying author James Howard Kunstler posted 4 years, 6 months ago 25 Responses
Life After Death
I have pondered the issue of the death of enviromentalism over the last few weeks, since I read the first article. It is sad that we have come to a point where this is even being discussed. The single largest problem I see is that there are so many groups with very special interests, we have ignored how we live here and now while we work towards change. The collective money raised by all environmental groups is huge, but it is being used in an ineffective manner because it is so scattered. The environmental movement has many new activists, economists, and researchers emerging now, use them to best advantage by helping them to create living examples of the combined result of all that has gone before. If all the environmental groups put their efforts and resources into one organized, cohesive program that not only met the needs of all their groups, but also the needs of the planet and its people, they would have the political and economic power they need to accomplish what is needed: MAKING THE PEOPLE OF THE PLANET (AND SPECIFICALLY, WASHINGTON, DC)SEE THAT WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER AND ONLY BY WORKING TOGETHER CAN WE SURVIVE.
I have grandchildren that I want to know have clean air and water; can swim in the lakes and streams safely; who can eat food that does not poison their bodies or leave them sterile; and who can pass the beauty of this planet along to their children for generations to come. As long as all the various environmental groups squabble over the same money, and divide their efforts into little specialty groups addressing only part of the problem, nothing of any consequence is being accomplished. The businesses and governments which protect them have banded together to protect their interests. Maybe it is time for the environmental groups to learn from their opponents, and band together as well. Our future is in presenting a united front, with practical living examples for others to see and learn from in order to gain the public support necessary on a very large scale. Until environmental groups do that, the public will not support their efforts.
The public is very fickle and goes with whoever offers them the quickest satisfaction of their wants and needs. Environmental matters take time to change on a large scale, but on a neighborhood scale things can happen quickly. Lobbying may be fine and good in D. C., but on my block, it means nothing. The people in my neighborhood want to know how to put food on the table, get a job, and try to keep the medical bills down. To them, the broader issues of environmentalism are of no interest. Sadly, that is true of the majority of the world. Environmentalism needs to become proactive in a way that is easy for people to identify with and in a way that will help the world take notice of what is really happening to our planet if we do not change our ways. An environmental congress bringing together all the groups to create one body whose sole purpose is to create a better, healthier, sustainable world, and to which all the groups pledge their financial support and resources would be a starting point.
The Earth is changing its weather patterns. Soon there will be no going back, and we will need to learn a new way of living anyway. Now is the time to unite and create a new living system that is easy to use for everyone, that incorporates all the lifeforms on this planet in a balanced way, and to demonstrate to everyone that it can be done in their neighborhoods. We have some of the most intelligent people on the planet involved in the environmental movement, why not put them together to devise a plan of such a large scale that it cannot be ignored by the world, and make it work for everyone. Once you prove it can be done, the use the combined financial resources of all the groups to make it happen at the ballot box, in congressional backhallways, and on city and country streets here in the USA, and then teach by example around the world. Something to think about! Environmentalism is not dead, it just needs to remake itself for the 21st century and start playing by the rules of the "good ol' boys", because the only way to win for everyone is to use those rules aginst the guys who wrote them.On Four emerging environmental leaders discuss the future of their field posted 4 years, 9 months ago 5 Responses