Dem Injuns Comin!

I thought I'd relay this funny story from my high school days.

As a product of a lawyer (read: smart-ass) family, I was taught always that word choice, terms, categories, etc. were important to debate to the most asinine of degrees. Thus, when I sat down to take the P-SATs and had to fill out the bubble for my ethnicity, I paused for a moment. I hate these ethnicity bubbles and usually leave them blank, which of course, indicates that I am the least-wanted ethnicity, white. Horsefarts. My eyes glanced over the "Native American" bubble. Along with most old American families, I have a trace amount of Leni Lenape blood running through me. That's not what I was thinking of though, as my pencil moved over the bubble. My father has always pointed out the problems with this term - after all, I am native to America too, dagnabbit.

The bubble was darkened.

I finished the test and did okay. Not great, not too terribly bad, but definitely not well enough to get what came next.... I started getting scholarship offers from Harvard. I shit you not. If Harvard did any research whatsoever into their actions, they would realize that I am from Philadelphia, not exactly a Native American haven. White folk forced them out a long time ago. They would also realize that I have an Italian last name. Chances that I would have a significant portion of Native American blood - slim.

The icing on the cake was when I received a customized letter from the Native American group at Harvard urging me to come. Imagine if I showed up to some powwow. "Hi guys!" I'd wave enthusiastically. "Look at my moccasins!" - purchased from some JCrew outlet. I'd probably get kicked out. Then Harvard's president would call me into his office.

Harvard President: You are clearly not Native American.

Me: Yes I am! I was born here! Look at my moccasins!

Harvard President: Get out of here.

Me: Stop oppressing me!

Harvard President: (slams door in face)

Me: (Attach dead smelly fish to arrows and shoot them through his office window. Run away)


I question Harvard's other scholarship offers.

Swiss Accidentally Invade Lichenstein

Take a look at this article, brought to my attention by Travis (hi smoochikins!), which explains how a 100+ soldiers from Switzerland got lost in the night and ended up invading Lichenstein. Whoopsadaisy!

Why do I care about the Environment?

Ok, so you may ask yourselves, why does she flip her nuggets with giddy glee every time someone mentions an environmental buzzword? Answer: everything we do matters.

First and foremost, environmental issues affect health. Pollution and toxic chemicals exist in every waterway, every breath of air, your mattress, your clothes, your electronics, even your food. If you think this sounds alarmist, start looking up some of the ingredients in those long lists of ingredients, and see what you find. Behind most diseases exists environmental causes or contributors.

Secondly, environmental issues affect quality of life. People are happier and healthier in well-planned neighborhoods. By that, I mean that people are happier when they have green spaces, community gathering spaces, and strollable neighborhoods. Sprawl kills community and decentralizes vibrant downtowns and neighborhoods (and adds to pollution through increased driving, chemicals, loss of open land, etc.). I grew up not knowing my neighbors, for pete's sake.


Thirdly, I love the outdoors and want to keep this:



from turning into this:






Not that I'm against cities, because I think that cities could be possibly our most sustainable way of housing all our population, but I'm against development that is unhindered, unplanned, unattractive, unsustainable and environmentally and public health degrading.



Fourth, I'm a Christian. Please don't run away screaming "AHHH!!!" To my sadness, certain facets of Christianity have been really slow to adopt, or are even against, environmental-friendly outlooks. The Catholic Bishops, and to a certain extent, the Evangelicals, have started to change this. The Catholic Bishops have released several treatises on the environment which plead for industries and the government to be socially responsible by changing environmentally damaging actions.

Now, I'm not Catholic, but I agree with much of what the Bishops are doing in this respect. Jesus calls us to live a simple life, in service of others. We are called to love our neighbors as ourselves. We are called to be stewards of the earth. Instead, we pollute, we partake in extreme consumption patterns, we release toxic chemicals, we put polluting industries in poor neighborhoods, we treat meat-animals as no more than factory items. I do not see the glory of God in rivers filled with trash, people dying of cancer caused by pollutants, or clearcutting.

People of all faiths have come out against these atrocities that we humans have done. From the Buddhists to the Catholics, the Hindus to the Muslims, people of faith join in solidarity saying this should not happen to our fellow man or to us or to the animals or to the earth.


Fifth, protecting the environment can be profitable and smart. I'm serious. I am definitely not a socialist nor am I a libertarian. I believe in free market and I think Adam Smith is a smart dude (although not a great writer, Wealth of Nations is really annoying to read).

Our current system, of global food production, for example, is plagued by inefficiency that needlessly expends fossil fuels, produces less-nutritious food, and creates health problems in a myriad of ways. By going back to local food production, we rely less on other nations for our food supply, we rely less on fossil fuels, and we have real connection with our food. Typically, food that is produced locally using sustainable methods is more nutritious, due to the increased emphasis on healthy soil. More nutritious food and eating habits will lessen our spending on health care, which is the highest in the world. If the burgeoning organic movement is any key (although, of course, the organic movement by agribusiness is hotly debated), profitable models of business are increasingly available and attractive to the consumer.

For too long we have subsidized socially irresponsible businesses, and then we taxpayers pay the price in clean-up and health costs, whilst the perpetrators pay nothing. (look up Superfund as an example). Yes, some subsidies are necessary, but not to the extent that they exist today.


Sixth.. I guess that's it, really. But my caring about the environment not because I'm anti-business, anti-growth, anti-cities, anti-people, anti-industry, anti-government. All of these are necessary and can be good things. The problem is, with "great power comes great responsibility", and we've been shirking our responsibilities. All of us contribute to the problem, from George W. Bush to me.


So, I support the environment out of a love for people, the outdoors and God. Why do you?

Hummingbird

This picture was taken by a classmate of mine , the insectologist Kim, when we all went to Costa Rica to study sustainable business. In Monteverde, they have a hummingbird garden. I love these little guys, and they can show us a bit of how everything comes around. Read on to see how.

A google search tells me there are 320 species, some of which migrate from Central America to as high up as Alaska each year. How they manage to make it in Alaska, I don't know, but perhaps they drink whiskey instead of nectar. In the fall, the migratory ones, including the most well known, the ruby-throated hummingbird, migrate southward and then cross the Gulf of Mexico. They're freaking smaller than my hand and they cross a giant gulfy abyss! Makes me wonder why I have trouble crossing my bed to get up in the morning.

Anyway, currently there are several hummingbird species that are endangered, and others are experiencing population declines. This is due to habitat destruction along their migratory path, here in the US, and in their wintering home of central/South America.

Currently, the rainforest is being cut down for agriculture by slash and burn methods and for growing crops to make ethanol.

First thing not too good about that: nutrients are held within a rainforest trees' roots. So when the trees are cut down, the nutrients go with them, and thus, there are only a couple of years of good growing before the soil is nutrient poor and unable to grow anything. A better way for both agriculture and the rainforest is to cultivate small squares and move on - creating a patchwork effect. Most crops can be grown in and amongst rainforest trees, and indeed that's where they first evolved.



Second thing not too good about it: ethanol's no better for the environment than gas, and in some ways is more harmful.




Why, you may ask? Aren't I being environmentally unfriendly by not supporting ethanol?

Ethanol uses no less energy to produce as gas/oil. The crop used to make it (here in the US) is corn. I'll write another post about our love affair with corn. The journal Science has published studies on ethanol, and concluded that corn-based ethanol has similar greenhouse emissions as gasoline. It's also less fuel-efficient, and requires more trips to the gas pump, and has to be trucked around, which further contributes to our gas needs. And, we can't forget that corn grown with un-sustainable, un-environmentally and people friendly methods doesn't really further any environmental cause. Plus, it's genetically engineered corn..

Ethanol is being embraced because it allows us to continue our dance with corn and maybe possibly get less reliant on foreign oil (see ethanol's largest coalition's website here) while creating a new industry to invest/profit from. Proponents say that ethanol will get cheaper as more people invest in it. Right now, it's more expensive than gas, even though the US heavily subsidizes it....My question is why we don't do this push with solar energy, which makes a whole lot more sense.

All this said, there is a place for ethanol. Refineries are substituting ethanol for a water-supply-polluting oxygenating agent (MTBE). However, it's a mistake to think that we should make ethanol our prime supply, or make it beyond an oxygenating agent. And, the ethanol we make should be from sustainably grown sources.

Cellulostic ethanol looks better to me - cellulostic ethanol uses all parts of a plant whereas ethanol only uses corn kernels. Canada and I think.. Minnesota?.. are looking into this with switchgrass, a native grass that's easy and fast to grow, and would be easier on the earth. Currently it's not cheap enough.

However, I think the best thing now is probably be bio-diesel, which reduces volume from our waste stream and runs clean, and for which a converter can be put on any diesel car. We can continue experimenting with ethanol, but right now, I say it doesn't do anything better for the earth and us.

See summary of Cornell's scientists findings about ethanol not being better here and here
See Business Week's Q+A on ethanol here
See CATO Institute's (and Chicago Sun-Times) article on ethanol here

You can also type ethanol into google and see tons of lobbyist sites from corn growers and ethanol companies.

When Is Science Science and When Is It Verbal Toiletry?

The great thing about global climate change science is that it helps to popularize environmental problems. The problem with global climate change science is that it's a wide and varied field that's hard to separate from politics. And the only people that really stick in peoples' minds negatively or positively are the ones that have political agendas. Which stinks like New York City's trash shipments.

But it's a mistake to think every scientist has a political agenda. True scientists will argue til they're blue in the face that science is all about peer-review and proof and can't be conducted under the auspices of political gain, because it ruins the integrity of experiments.

Like in every academic field, you can find a whole host of ideas, experiments and results. Results that are similar which are worded differently, which politicians and lobbyists use to their goals. Research on the same subject can be run differently and have differing results. People will even use the same argument to prove two different things.

The most important thing to remember is that global warming science has been around for 30 years, back when NASA scientist oh-what's-his-name started blowing the whistle, and was continually rebuffed. (see BBC's article on global warming scientists getting hushed) Global warming science has only really hit the popular mindset in the last 10 years.. Thus, it's still very much a young science that is developing its methodology and standards. The discipline will define itself with time. It has to, for the sake of continuing the discussion, assessing public policy and its own sanity.


So where and how do we find the truth in climate change science reports?


Truth might be found in the moderation of two extremes. Or perhaps it is found in finding the research done by professors/researchers whom you already know and trust.... Or you can read everything yourself, do a few experiments. The fact is that most scientists do believe that human-made emissions do have a warming effect on climate. The quabbles exist over whether humans caused global warming, how much they contribute to it, and how severe the problem is.

My whole shebang is that ultimately, it doesn't matter.

We need to cut emissions anyway, whether it's for global warming or public health. Emissions from cars and coal are on the top polluters to air quality. They result in billions of dollars in health care from all sorts of illnesses. (see National Institute of Health and EPA articles here)

Industrial waste and fertilizers, deforestation and strip-mall-building has endangered our open spaces, our farming and degraded our water systems. We should be working on these things because they are real demonstrated effects of real problems with solid research with real tangible solutions. Waiting around for people to reach a 100% consensus on how much humans contribute/cause global warming before acting is silly. Let's fix what we can while we can with the knowledge we have.

Ultimately, there's no way to tell how much of the global climate change effect is from humans. My argument is that it's all moot, and if we start working on our real problems, it'll help us to cut emissions, which in turn, may help.

See What A Mess You're Living In

A commenter, Karen, (thanks!!) brought to my attention this website from Earth Day Network. It has a map with major cities of the US on it, and you click on whatever city to learn it's environmental scores. If you scrol down, it breaks down its averages into smaller numbers, based on things like public health, sprawl, air quality, etc. All in all, it's pretty interesting, and probably gives a great start to understanding the issues surrounding your hometown. I'm not exactly sure about the methodology or the exact science, but use it as a guideline and maybe you can start getting involved in efforts to fix the worst problems.

My original hometown of Philadelphia got a pretty bad rating.. including a 4.1 (1-5 with 5 being the worst) in air quality. We're a rather obese and asthmatic city. Whoops a daisy!


San Francisco has started an aggressive recycling program which is trying to reduce waste going to landfills to zero in the coming years (they already recycle 60% of their waste). They're also starting a local food system to encourage efficiency and community in food production. They got pretty decent scores..better than Philadelphia, anyway. Portland got even better scores, probably due to its incredible land planning.

No cities' without its projects. It's a really hard problem to tackle - how to not only reduce and cut pollution/emissions from cities, but clean former pollution as well.

Anyway, food for thought. Check out your city!

Be This Guy: Sloth in the Jungle

I mean look at this guy. We're all this guy. Replace the leaves with TV and you've got America...er...me.

Funny how nature repeats itself!

Maybe there's a deeper issue within all life that incites us to laziness, greed and over-consummption?

Saving the world is as easy as...your mouse

If you're like me and aren't Bill Gates, the question of how best to support the environment inevitably arises. well, cry no more, broke one, because you can support the environment for free! ...as long as you have a computer and internet, which are both expensive and have energy intensive manufacture and upkeep, ho-hum, complexity!... Anyway, visit these sites to simply click a button. Every click generates revenue for land conservation. If you click their ads, you also generate more revenue. Happy clickin'!

www.therainforestsite.com
www.ecologyfund.com

Some Cynicism

Favorite joke?
A pirate walks into a bar with a steering wheel in his pants, and the bartender says, "Hey man, you got a steering wheel in your pants," and the pirate says, "yarrrgh and it's drivin' me nuts.

The General Gist, Boo Dominion

To save you having to read the previous essay, I thought I'd summarize.
The goings on in Virginia have never been so Grey's Anatomy-scandaloucious. Dominion, our resident omnipresent electric company, is the largest contributor to political campaigns in Virginia (ai ai ai!) put together a "Re-Regulation" scheme which it put on the floor on the last day of meetings, giving the bill no time to be debated or have real public comment!

Here's the text summary of the Bill from the House. Basically, Dominion will be guaranteed profits, guaranteed no losses and guaranteed to be a monopoly.... Hmm, see antitrust laws.... No competition, which I believe is socialism, is a bad idea...especially when set up with a for-profit, socially-irresponsible company. (Dominion is the 20th largest polluter in the SP500, and if it were a country, it'd be the 34th biggest polluter..from Washington Post)

Dominion asserts there are 2 problems - Virginia's energy demand is growing and it needs to build more coal plants to meet it, and that without regulation, it can't be assured of enough profits to keep truckin'. Well, Dominion has provided no proof of "Virginia's growing energy demand". Even if there is unmeetable growth in energy demand, we can meet it with current energy production and cheap conservation measures.

Sadly, the bill allows Dominion to build coal and nuclear plants a'plenty, with no talk of environmental regulation or abetting costs of pollution (health care, environmental clean up, smog, etc.). And, no talk of investing or encouraging renewable energy, for which the market is projected to double by 2013.... A whole host of organizations have come out against the plan; Washington Post, CCAN, environmental groups, etc. Needless to say, me no likey the plan. The photo shows hazy skies from... air pollution.

(***Aside*** coal plant pollution already is destroying Virginia’s Shenandoah Park, which has nearly 2 million visitors a year. It frequently experiences harmful ozone concentrations, decreased air visibility, and acid rain, all from air pollution from coal plants (NPS). In the 30s and 40s, you could see Washington Monument on a clear day from a mountain in Shenandoah. Now, you're lucky to see 10 miles. Ok, aside done. ****)

No to SB1416, Down Dominion, Bad Dog!

A Brief essay I wrote on why the governor of Virginia should not pass SB 1416. it's dry...very dry.

SB1416 Electrics Utilities bill (commonly called Re-Regulation) should not be passed because it violates anti-trust laws, hurts the consumer and places unhindered power in the electric company in question, Dominion’s, hands. It effectively puts electric customers at vendor lock-in as well as fixes price and profits while insuring against losses for a private business at the expense of the choice-less customer. Only minimal benefits for the consumer and the state are included. The construction of new coal plants by a company already ranked among the worst polluters in the world (20^th highest polluter in the SP500, Wash. Post) – a leading cause of air pollution and acid rain - without any mitigating efforts for environmental and healthcare-related costs, is allowed and encouraged.

Dominion protests that it cannot provide services without knowing and increasing its profits, and thus, it wants re-regulation. However, this bill solves a problem that doesn’t exist. Even under State Corporation Commission (SCC) regulated rates, Dominion saw large profits. In this bill, Dominion is assured profits of equivalent companies in the South (and possibly more, as dictated by the SCC) – however, those companies do not enjoy the same regulation benefits that Dominion will. Dominion should not receive such a high profit margin (and one that is extremely adjustable) and profit-security without resulting benefits to taxpayers and customers. The current promised benefits are meager and vague, and are on top of a large profit margin.

This bill will give unlawful control to Dominion over customer choice (prohibits leaving if damaging to utility) and create a monopoly that will hamstring a developing market in renewable energy, which is expected to double by 2013 (CEERT).

Proponents of re-regulation say that the de-regulation experiment did not work. De-regulation needs more time to allow the market to fix any current problems. Deregulation did not work only because Dominion’s rates were set under the market share and discouraged competition. Private competition encourages diversity, innovation and low pricing in energy manufacture (Pennsylvania). A free electricity market in today’s social climate will create jobs in Virginia and attract business, especially when paired with other bills on energy efficiency in the House now.

Some states have re-regulated to avoid price hikes, but projections of fuel costs are variable and inaccurate. The bill was introduced too quickly to have proper education, comment and public feedback. If regulation is deemed necessary, a better plan with more expert input from balanced sources is required.

The bill essentially provides guaranteed funding for the new nuclear/coal plants Dominion wants while providing no impetus to invest in renewable energy, air clean-up or clean burning technology. Dominion has not provided documentation showing that more plants are needed. These probably unneeded new coal plants will greatly increase already high rates of air pollution in Virginia, which will further degrade ecosystems, visibility, and air quality. Shenandoah’s place as most polluted (air and acid rain) national park will be even more cemented. Studies show that by implementing cost-effective, cheaper, fuel conservation measures, Virginia will have power for years to come. The bill allows for the hidden costs of coal plants to be passed along to the taxpayer with no benefits.

In addition, there has been active citizen, institutional and press backlash and disapproval.

For all these reasons, SB1416 should not be passed. It is not in the best interests for constituents.

Science - It's Coming !!!!

Yes, the scientific community has started to come out of the closet. The political closet that is. Not that we shouldn't support gay scientists. Anyway, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, made up of 262 groups, said the bad word. (read from the Daily Grist, Feb. 20) They came out this week saying that climate change is caused by human activities, and well.. that ain't a good thing. This of course comes on the heels of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which included scientists from 92 countries, which concluded with 90% certainty that humans have been the biggest cause of global warming. This up from 60% certainty in 2001. (Source: NY Times article, Feb. 2)

Hm. And what does our government say? Here's Bush's plan on Climate Change from Whitehouse.gov. It's pretty substantial, and promises a lot. Of course, it's from Feb. 2002, and not much has changed. And his Clear Skies Initiative had weaker regulation than the Clean Air Act of 1990, despite the fact that we have better technology and knowledge of the health affects today. And his climate change cabinet, headed by Cheney, is comprised of Industry bigwigs that weaken EPA regulations. Crikey!














But, I guess we should be thankful that anything's happening at all. Nixon was a reluctant environmentalist, and ended up being our most environmentally friendly president we've had. So perhaps Bush can turn around, despite his reluctance and his clients. After all, the Bush Administration is smart and saavy, no matter how many people call them dumb and slow. They're just smart and saavy for a different side. Blast!

Jeff Parker Cartoon from this website.

Oh I Wish I Were An Aldo Leopold

"A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise."- Aldo Leopold, Sand County Almanac

First things first. Aldo Leopold is possibly the coolest name ever made. Look at the almost evenly spaced 'o's. For those of you now admiring those evenly spaced 'o's whilst wondering "Who is Aldo Leopold?", Aldo was a widely respected, peaceful and contemplative conservation writer (think along the lines of Thoreau) who died in the early 90s.

Now that we know who Aldo is, let us break down his quote. It's the best definition of right and wrong that I've come across. Of course, right and wrong are still subjective, even in this definition because people will argue til we're blue in the face about what's healthy for a community, but this quote appeals to my conscience like a CD of nature sounds.

Unfortunately, I find myself doing quite a lot of "wrong." Quite frankly, though I consider myself an "executive hippie"-- sort of like a professional, educated and showered (well, occasionally. I, uh, save water, and all that) tree hugger for the 21st century -- many, if not most, of my activities/purchases don't preserve integrity, stability and beauty. A quick glance around my college room yields a view of cheap high-VOC paint, pressed particle board furniture treated with formaldehyde, Walmart curtains, and a mattress made with all the wrong sorts of chemicals. Yikes. It looks like I don't even promote a lifestyle that ensures my own integrity, stability and beauty. But let's extend our examination into the wide world yonder.

There's good news and bad news. The good news, dear Aldo, is that we're working on it. Sort of. Sometimes. Al Gore is on the case, anyway. And wherever Al Gore goes, there's.. um.. well that's where Al Gore is. I kid, I kid. The good news is that people are, on the whole, most assuredly good, or at least, misinformed. There are movements for fair trade, fair workers' treatment, fair treatment of the Earth, equal opportunity for all, green and healthy affordable housing...the list goes on and on.

The bad news is that America, land of opportunity and frontier spirit, is one of the most reluctant to hop on the green bandwagon. As with all great movements in their youth, the green movement is fighting a battle of defining itself - this leaves wiggle room for the current administration to pander to its supporters, namely big oil. With Walmart and other industries scrambling to get a piece of the toast (see blog title, woo woo!) before policy changes happen, people are beginning to question what organic and free trade even mean. And, dear Aldo, in a land where industrial giants have the most political clout, the people who most need our support, small farms and businesses, are largely left out of political happenings.

So where do we go from here? Can the world do "right" things as defined by our dear Aldo?